Talk:Ghent Altarpiece

Suggested Additional Section
Since the altarpiece figures so prominently in the movie Monuments_Men_(film), I suggest that a section on Ghent Altarpiece in Literature and Film would show its influence on modern times.71.230.201.203 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is it??
Where is it exactly now? Maybe that is important to be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kabbalistic influences
The Adoration of the Lamb is full of symbolism. Yet the most significant key to its interpretation - one that curiously seems to have eluded the art historians - is that the central section is arranged in the form of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life comprises three pillars and ten sephiroth. At the top of the central pillar, the pillar of Consciousness, is Kether, the Crown. This represents the Godhead through which God's will is manifest in the world. Below Kether is Da'at or Knowledge, symbolised in the painting by the Holy Spirit. At the center is Tipheret or Beauty, represented by the Lamb itself - the heart of God in the world. Next comes Yesod or Foundation, identified here by the fountain. Lastly comes Malkuth, the Kingdom. This is the world in which you and I, the observers, live. As the Kabbalistic saying goes, "Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth is in Kether".

To the right we have the masculine pillar, the pillar of Force. At the top is Hochmah or Wisdom. Below is Chesed or Mercy represented by the women carrying palms. Below that is Netzach or Victory, which conveys cyclical repetition, represented by the popes and bishops.

To the left we have the female pillar, the pillar of Form. At the top is Binah or Understanding. Below is Gevurah or Judgement, which can be interpreted as the enforcement of tradition on a day to day basis, and represented here by the clergy. Below that is Hod or Splendor, often associated with learning and represented by the Jewish scholars.

Clearly, the artists, Hubert and Jan van Eyck, were strongly influenced by Christian Kabbalah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbs (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your posts. I doubt this is "the most significant key to its interpretation". If you have a source, it might be given a place in the article. Piet | Talk 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The realization that this painting was patterned on the Tree of Life came to me in 1973 when I stood before it in Ghent. That's the only Source I can cite. To students of the Kabbalah, the connection is incontestable and the significance profound. First, it indicates that the Christian mystical tradition in the Netherlands in the early fifteenth century had been influenced by the Kabbalah – a tradition normally associated with esoteric Judaism. Second, it suggests that the artists Hubert and Jan van Eyck had been heavily exposed to the Christian mystical tradition.


 * Arguably, though less blatantly, the same patterning can be seen in The Arnolfini Portrait. Here you have the three pillars of the Tree of Life: the maculine and feminine pillars (albeit transposed from their traditional representation where the masculine pillar would be on the right) and the central pillar of consciousness, represented by the candelabra (kether?), mirror (tepheret?) and dog (yesod?). Gbs (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam's apple
Not I think so known in English (only the thing in the male throat is so called, nowadays anyway). Do you know the botantic/English name for the species? Johnbod 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Most sources say that the depicted fruit is an etrog rather than a bumpy lemon. In this connection it is worth recalling that Jan van Eyck was sent by his patron, the Duke of Burgundy, on missions to the Levant and would have been familiar with the fruit. Also in this connection note that the vegetation depicted in some of the landscapes is Mediterranean. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Whereabouts during World War Two
The text says "The painting was stored in a museum in Pau for the duration of the war" but this is contradicted later when we learn it was moved to Germany on Hitler's orders. 89.100.251.145 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunday Times, Perth 28.2.1943, p. 2)

Loot for Goering

New York. "La Libre" underground Belgian newspaper, confirms that Goering has snaffled van Eyck's painting of the "Adoration of the Lamb", one of the world's greatest art treasures.

The "Adoration" was some weeks ago reported to have been presented to Goering by the French Government, which had the painting in its safekeeping since the Nazi onslaught against Belgium.

This rumor was received with scepticism, but investigation has proved it true.

Goering's loot belongs to Ghent Cathedral. Central panels, which came into the possession of the King of Prussia, were restored to the Cathedral under the Versailles Treaty of 1919. "Adam and Eve" panels, which were removed in 1781, because Emperor Joseph II. thought them "too liberal for a cathedral", were restored at the same time.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/59175968 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.145.231.231 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Quality
Some of the images, in particular the central figures, have a foggy quality on my computer monitor although others reproduce O.K. Can anybody improve the images? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I've replaced three central images with clearer and more colorful examples. The problem is the inconsistency of images available in the commons; some 'foggy', which is to say dull in color, and others more chromatic. I suspect the latter are not only more pleasing but truer to the paintings. In the article a patchwork of gray and colorful images is not the best solution, but neither is a series of images unified by dinginess. Perhaps someone versed in the business of downloading images can offer improvements to what we've got. JNW (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Structure
Re this edit by TK. Agree with this, find the current organisation, with so many sections unwieldy, I'd at least merge the outer panel bits, I think long blocks of text without 20 fourth level headers is fine. There was a similar problem with The Garden of Earthly Delights, I think the solution worked out there would do here. Might comment out some of the images for now as we work through, they can be restored later when there is enough text to accomidate. Maybe a third level heading for each register (ie 2 and 3).Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The "History" and "Theft" can be combined imo. I'd go with as few levels as possible and then restructure as it grows. Not sure the "Description" level two is necessary because it shoves everything down a level. I'd start with having the main divisions as upper panels, lower panels, exterior panels - or something like that. Obviously it will change a lot, but the problem will be to keep from going to 4th level headings. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, we'll assume this for now and see as we go on what best suits. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TK we should carve up bits least we duplicate effort, I'll work on Adam and Eve and the "Style and technique" section next. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting at the bottom - that section is a mess and since I only had to move about two feet to reach the book, it suits my current state of laziness. And it's an interesting story. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe. I have all the books and prints of Riggr's pdf's within arms reach. I dont even have to turn. Laziness rules. Re that section, any book with the words "the true story of" in the title, gotta go. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the subtitle - but if you're serious will drop it and then go searching for pdfs, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Na, should have added a knowing smiley face after that. It seems fine to use, unless we come across something better. Have you found an online copy? Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also we have The Just Judges. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So we have. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * nl Just Judges, but its uncited. I havent run it through the translator yet. The German and Catalan articles are on the altarpiece are both FA. The German version seems to be a translation and weak, the Catalan good enough in areas, but not so in others. Its structured as this one was, and has superflious sections, and though covers a lot of bases, doesnt mine or go into dept when need. What I mean is it has a balance issue, in my view. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look at them. Can probably make out the NL version, definitely the German version. I've read about the panel, I think in Pacht, and somewhere else too. I've done a quick fix there for now and will work on it more tomorrow. Looks like it was a big story so can probably pull something out of google news archives. Or at least try. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looked at them all. Thinking. I don't like to follow structures from other pages, at least hasn't helped me much in the past. I think we can build on the diptych - only about times ten! What you added tonight is very nice and necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, have gone to third level. Not seeing anyway around it, if the page is to be coheriant and nagavationable. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the muscians angels?
If the answer to this question shall be based on fact, we have to look for evidence in the painting itself. This applies both to the two panels showing the groups of musicians and to the whole altarpiece.

Concerning the whole altarpiece, there are 14 angels in the central panel of the lower register. They are shown in a central position circling around the lamb. All of them have wings and they are wearing simple white gowns.

The two groups of musicians in the upper register, however, have no wings and are wearing extremely expensive gowns that are typical for queens and kings, and - without jewels - for priests and bishops during church service on special days.

The music stand of the left group is typical for church singers of those days. This and the singers' gowns indicate a setting that is typical for a church performance. The only difference is that the gowns are more expensive than they could be in real life.

We should also bear in mind that Jan van Eyck was a Renaissance artist and as such aimed at copying nature as realistic as possible. The demeanor of the singers' faces clearly is human-like. It is not idealized, as one would expect for images of angels.

I will therefore re-edit the article accordingly and would kindly ask that the edits be not reverted again until valid evidence for such a measure is presented. Agric (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be getting the idea here. Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own personal views and WP:Original research, but summarizing existing knowledge, in this case that of published art historians. If you want to make this sort of argument you have to cite published scholarship supporting it. In this case you won't be able to find any, as your argument is just silly to anyone familiar with late medieval iconography. The musicians are wearing copes with huge jewelled morses fastening them, which are totally different from court female dress of the period, and clearly ecclesistical vestments. This is a very common style of dress for angels in art, as worn by the Archangel Gabriel in the Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington) and many other paintings. The loose hair styles are also completely different from those of richly dressed women of the period, as are the crosses on the jewelled tiaras.  The Gabriel in the Annunciation here is dressed in exactly the same style, except in plain white to match the colour values in the closed-view.  The choir panels are just too crowded to leave room for wings, so they have been omitted. The content you have removed is referenced to a book by a well-known specialist, which is exactly the "valid evidence" you ask for, & you have just substituted your own ill-informed views with no references or "evidence" at all. If you want to do this sort of thing, start a blog. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please cut out labels like "silly" and "ill-informed". They do not support your arguments. What you write here is in error in these respects:
 * 1) What has been published in a book is not "existing knowledge". It may be wrong. Here it is easy to see that your source is not reliable. It is simply impossible to see from an image of a mouth that was painted 580 years ago in which vocal register it is singing.
 * 2) The popes and bishops in the lower register are wearing the same type of copes. This does not make them to angels. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Ghent_Altarpiece_D_-_Popes_-_Bishops.jpg
 * 3) All angels in the altarpiece have wings. Also Gabriel in van Eyck's Annunciation has wings. The female musicians have no wings.
 * 4) The Gabriel of the Annunciation on the outer panels is not wearing a cope, but a simple white gown without any decoration at all. It is the same simple type of clothing that also the 14 angels in the central inner panel wear.
 * 5) Those who claim as a fact something that is not seen in the paintings have the burden to provide evidence. The source you referenced is proved as unreliable (vocal registers) and it also contradicts to what we see. If the source provides valid evidence elsewhere that you have not yet quoted, please quote this evidence.
 * Until you have provided valid evidence for your claim please revert your edits concerning the angels issue. Agric (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) well I'm no expert on music, & maybe Dhanaens isn't either. I can't tell who is singing which line, so this quote could go. 2) Yes, exactly. The angels are portrayed as equivalent to the clergy, serving God. 3) This is a teeny bit of a circular argument, is it not! 4) A cope is a shape in clothing. That is a cope. 5) And your references are ....? Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Angels are not part of the clergy! Please!
 * 3) If there are 15 angels with wings on the whole piece, we need evidence for a claim that there should also be wingless angles.
 * 4) Can we agree that in the whole altarpiece the clothing of the 15 angels on the one hand and that of the popes and bishops and the musicians on the other hand is strikingly different?
 * 5) Those who see no angels in the musicians panels do not need scholarly support. Only those who claim to "see" something invisible have the burden of proof. Agric (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work up the section tonight, try and convey more clearly what the vast majority, if not all, of the relevant art historian believe the two panels show and represent. But Johnbod is correct in each of his points judging from the four books I've pulled out in the last half hour. My only quibble is proving "Johnbod's Law" (Agric see the sect on his user page!) by writing a section under pressure from a challange on talk, but we can trim back later if we come to agreement. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. If you find something in a book, let us know. But please report the evidence that is given in the book. An "opinion" alone is no valid evidence, no matter how big or how high the "authority" of its author is. Agric (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have "evidence" in Dhanens, but am also currently up to my eyeballs in real life demands and can't get back here for a few days. Is there a rush on this? All the sources I have, per WP:RS and WP:V support what I've written - I wouldn't have felt comfortable adding it otherwise. I don't think a quick rewrite in the face of a talk page demand is a good idea, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's where you're wrong, I'm afraid. The "opinion" of a WP:RS, and especially a whole pile of them, is evidence. Your opinion, or ours, is not. So far you have tried to remove an RS, and just given us your opinions. You really need to find a specialist art historian who can explain why the picture would show a bunch of girls wearing church vestments, and the hair-style mostly worn in public by prostitutes at that period, making music next to God. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have added to the section, should adresses most of the points. There is a lot more that could be said about the two wings, I skipped over a fair bit, it being late on a tuesday night and all. Hopefuly this answears some of your questions. If not there are realms and realms more litrature we can wade through, but it would be concentric and directional, is my guess. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that covers it pretty well. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil, for the hard work. In particular I like the two new images, where one can now see the faces in detail. On the angel question, however, I am afraid we are not yet done at all. You reported two arguments for the angel opinion from the literature. First, there is a tradition to show holy persons accompanied by angels. Second, the musicians have angel-like faces. Sorry, did you find this convincing? The first argument only points out the possibility that the painter intended to show angels, not more. The second argument is circular, of course. Also it is impossible to define what an angel-like face is. There are many beautiful female faces in 15-century art. Not all of them show angels or prostitutes. See this one: http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/hans-memling/tommaso-portinari-and-his-wife There still remain two serious counterarguments. First, all other angels in the altarpiece have wings and strikingly different clothes. Second, clothes, the music stand, and the floor are all typical for a setting in a church. Suggestion, if we cannot settle this issue, should we not present both views, as views, in the article? Agric (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are done here, but for more detail see the Index under "Angels, liturgical vestments of" in Lane, Barbara G,The Altar and the Altarpiece, Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Painting, Harper & Row, 1984, ISBN 0064301338, and the further works cited there. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have to find a WP:RS supporting your view. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Johnbod, this is not correct. Since there is nothing visible in the two musicians panels that indicates the status of "angels" and since opinions that suggest this are not based on evidence, the status "no angels" is the default case, or - statistically - the null hypothesis. Those who support a null hypothesis never have to deliver a WP:RS. Only those who argue that the null hypothesis is violated - that the musicians ARE angels - have to deliver a WP:RS. But this WP:RS must be able to hold water. Otherwise it is unable to defeat a null hypothesis. Agric (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is now a stack of references confirming that they are angels. The fact that you can't see why is beside the point. What policy says "Those who support a null hypothesis never have to deliver a WP:RS"? None. Erwin Panofsky actually says "so far as I know, they are the only wingless angels in Northern fifteenth-century painting" but others have found them in works by Gerard David (link below) and Robert Campin . The crowded scene is a perfectly adequate reason for omitting them here - your alternative thesis would require a truly bizarre justification. Please don't waste more of people's time on this - go and do some reading on the art of the period, starting here. Or just leave it that everybody is wrong except you. Or let's have your explanation of the new picture just added here, on the wingless musicians in front of the throne in heaven, and general consistency in angelic costume.  Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not talk to a nonsense person. I had warned you. Agric (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, Panofsky, even today, is conidered authorative on paintings of this era, espically on iconagraphy, so I think this is basically resolved. Thanks Johnbod for digging out these arguments. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll just add in conclusion that the Washington painting I've added here is especially useful in being a very close comparison in various respects making it clear when & why angels don't have (or hide away?) their wings - the back rows of the choir and musicians in heaven have them, but those whose wings would block out other angels don't. It's the same with halos in earlier Italian art - they are sometimes dropped when they'd get in the way.  Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, not having enough space to include them was the first thing that struck me. Im not finding anything on the loose hair in what I have, do you have anything. Might be interesting to inclde more on the lack of wings and some discussion of their hair in an dedicated section on iconograhy at a later time. Have found other parallels to the Washingtion panel; I'd certainly like to bring in the repro posted above after more work is done on the outer view. Ceoil (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectable women never wore their hair loose like that in public, except maybe for performances & such; I think that - as for later centuries up to the Victorians - it was just considered too sexy. But they let it down at home of course - certainly in the bedroom. Of course these are genderless angels, who typically have these boy's 1960s cuts to around shoulder length - 15th century female hair was I think normally left very long indeed.  Not sure what refs I have to hand for all this. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We touched on it with The Magdalen Reading, maybe Campbell has something general, will take a look. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course the rules are different for saints, and so many early netherlandish paintings represent "private" scenes I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I make a stab at the beginnings of an iconography section over the weekend or when TK gets back; would you mind keeping an eye. I think quick mentions in the desc is enough, and then more thorough examinations in a seperate section would be best. There will be no null hypothesis though to wade through, I can guarentee you that ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just found this: "In many towns prostitutes were prohibited from wearing a headress or hood, and this set them apart most strongly; to pull off a woman's headdress amounted to an accusation of prostitution." p. 140, Françoise Piponnier and Perrine Mane; Dress in the Middle Ages; Yale UP, 1997; ISBN 0300069065 - puts a different spin on all the long-haired saints. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes, thanks. Wondering why saints were exempt, where that tradition came from. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a number of factors - it's clear that for royalty a crown with flowing hair beneath was always considered entirely acceptable. Generally there was some sense of historical anachronism in portrayals of saints and other ancient figures, who are generally not dressed in the latest fashion. I think there's also a married/unmarried dimension, with unmarried women allowed to "advertise" themselves by display more - same as the modern Jewish Sheitel. An interesting topic I've not read anything specific on. On the wingless angels I'll add to Angels in art when I can, which can be linked here. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The top is the Kingdom of Heaven and the bottom is the earthly sacrifice. Hence the father of Jesus wearing a crown and Jesus on earth bringing pilgrimage. Angels don't fly in heaven they fly on earth. I guess the bible isn't a cite-able resource though, or is it? I'm new to editing. MookJong (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Position of the two musicians wings within the framework of the altarpiece
Ceoil, you wrote at the beginning of the musicians section: “The two "musical angels" wings are positioned within the overall framework of the altarpiece as attendants to the King of Kings, that is, to God the father as presented in the center-most panel of the upper register. This is a turn on a motif popular in the hagiography of the early 15th century.” Surely, panels 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the inner upper register are all oriented towards the center-most panel No 4. This can be seen from the orientation of the heads in all of the six flanking panels. But does this mean that all persons in these six panels are positioned as attendants to God? Adam and Eve would be very indirect attendants then. Perhaps we should also consider the differences in localities. While the three center-most panels may show one locality, the four wing panels show different ones. So, clearly, the musicians and God are not in the same room. Would it then seem correct to say that the musicians images are in the artistic tradition of angels attending God? What do you think? Agric (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agric Im a bit distracted at th moment, but will check this. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm *slowly* reading through, but found this on the Met website "Adam and Eve, at left and right, stand as the originators of sin in the world.". So not attendants. Need to clarify that. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jumping in quickly - I simply don't think there's a rush. There's too much to read, and people have lives and things to do. I too have info about the perspective but seriously doubt I can be back here for many weeks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one thing Agric you might have to be patient with, the page is undergoing a major rewrite by us lot, and the litratature is *huge*. Have mercy! Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The musicians look like humans in a church ceremony
Here I present two sources from the music and art historical literature that emphasize the naturalistic human-like depiction of the musicians and the naturalistic depiction of the setting as that of a church ceremony. 1) Reinhold Hammerstein, Die Musik der Engel, Berne 1962, pp 249-51. 2) Studies in the Performance of Late Medieval Music, edited by Stanley Boorman, Cambridge University Press 1983, p 30.

The view that the musicians are meant to represent angels is widespread in the art historical literature of the past 100 years. However, arguments for this view are missing. In fact, we are confronted with a typical Flat Earth syndrome. All believe it, because all believe it. It is clear that according to the rules of Wikipedia such a belief needs to be reported. But it needs to be called a belief, not a fact. Would it be alright, if we added the two references above and pointed out that Jan van Eyck was a Renaissance artist and as such strongly oriented toward depicting humans and things as naturalistic as possible? Agric (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. They certainly do have a "naturalistic human-like depiction" and this is well covered already in the article, but that does not contradict the fact that they are angels. Note the difference between "naturalistic" and "realistic", which they certainly are not, if considered as human. You might explore whether cathedral choirs used women at all at this period - I rather think they didn't. Of course the angels are genderless. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources are by art historians. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, Reinhold Hammerstein was a professor in musicology specialized in musical iconography. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Hammerstein
 * Tilman Seebass, the author of the relevant contribution in the other book, is a professor in musicology specialized in the field “Music and Art”, where he published a large number of studies. http://www.uibk.ac.at/musikwissenschaft/institut/personal/publikationsliste_seebass.pdf
 * The complete reference of the source is: Tilman Seebass, "The visualization of music through pictorial imagery and notation in late medieval France," in: Stanley Boorman (Ed), Studies in the Performance of Late Medieval Music, Cambridge (1983); 19-33.
 * Do these two sources have less value than yours? Agric (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do they actually address the question of the "species" of the musicians? Or are they just talking about what the images reveal about contemporary musical practice. As both authors will be very well aware, the vast majority of medieval images of musicians are of musical angels. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * From the source Agric mentions above. Very interesting information and confirmation of what's been written, but perhaps, time permitting, can be used to add bits. If the page isn't visible, I'll make notes when I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see some of the pages but not all. Yes this is a very strong source, and can be used, thanks Agric for finding. But from what Im reading, he is taking for granted that they are angels? Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He most certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So can we all just move on with our lives. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. We all have to. Also, the piece is 580 years away. So a couple of days should not matter. I am glad that you and Truthkeeper88 consider the text by Tilman Seebass as very important and want to use it. Yes, he takes it for granted that the singers are called angels. But in his view van Eyck paints them like humans in a setting on earth. And he says why van Eyck could have done so. That way we are provided with a kind of possible master key for the understanding of the whole altar piece. Agric (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its an interesting perspective. Hey, you realise that we've almost reached agreement ;) Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Social status of the musicians


As the attached contemporary painting of St Catherine by Rogier van der Weyden shows, the faces and the hair style of the female musician precisely mirror the common image of beautiful women of those days. They do not mirror the image of angels, prostitutes, or anything sexless. Please bear in mind that in the Cathoic Church saints are no angels. They are historic persons that were made saints by the Pope of Rome due to alleged heroic deeds for their religion. We can be sure that van Eyck painted young female musicians in about the same shape and behavior as they were common at the court of Philip the Good, where Jan van Eyck had his main professional position when he was working on the altar piece. It is known that in choirs outside of the church female singers had equal importance and fame as male singers. The fact that van Eyck presented a secular female choir in church clothing surely must have had a reason. Perhaps it should be taken up in the context of the views of Tilman Seebass, as refrenced above. Agric (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source on the role of female musicians during the days of Philip the Good and Jan van Eyck:

Edwards, J. Michele. "Women in Music to ca. 1450." In Women and Music: A History. Ed. Karin Pendle. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press, 1991, pp. 8-28. Agric (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Agric, I'll have a look at this when I have a chance. I did manage to spend a bit of time sorting through my sources on the Ghent last night, and I know that once we really dig in there will have to be a section about the naturalism/ realism, so hopefully it can cover as much as possible. There's still a lot of work to be done here and I'm essentially out for the next some weeks although I see that Ceoil has been working hard. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Agric is right in what he is saying from my sources, and this will be a fairly sundstantial part of the planned analysis and interpration section. Thanks for the source Agric. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting interesting, I see Boorman refers to the musicians as 'he'. Ceoil (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of angels are men. The archangel Michael obviously is, but still shown with flowing tresses in the diptych. That's why those pics keep showing up my page - I'm mildly fascinated by them, and I think Agric has brought to us something we really need to consider. I've found a ref re angels & renaissance art - haven't had time to read it and evaluate. Will send on to everyone if it's something we might want to use. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, all angels are genderless, and beautiful. They don't reproduce, so have no need for reproductive organs. Ditto eating and excretion. That's basic theology, reflected in art until about the 19th century, when some angels do start growing breasts. Obviously some fulfil more butch functions than others, and are costumed appropriately. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * teah, I know that, but these ones looked like birds to me. Re source; when you return tk, and not before. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Van Eyck vehemently rejected the option of musicians as sexless angels
Angels can be depicted as sexless, but in the case of the musicians in the Ghent altarpiece van Eyck vehemently rejected this option. Skilled artists such as van Eyck have a full command of all the facial and behavioral attributes of a person that denote the sex of the person. Because of this skill and knowledge it is easy for them to paint a sex-ambiguous person. For example, look at the detail of Caravaggio’s painting on the left. This angel can be regarded with equal probability as male or female.

The musicians of van Eyck, however, are depicted as female as can be. Anatomy of the faces, inclination of the heads, and way of looking are archetypically female and – taken together – definitely exclude any possibility that the musicians could be sex-ambiguous or sexless. The strong emphasis with which van Eyck opts in favor of naturalistic female attributes should perhaps also be taken as an indication of the artist’s intentions. Agric (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An edit
I've tidied the article up as best as I can without access to the sources. Anyone who does might want to check whether I've taken too many liberties. I've tried to regularise the use of "inner" and "outer" and "interior" and "exterior" as much as possible. "Wings" should, surely, only be used for the folding parts, not for individual panels.

I've no idea what a "timer swivel" is. Timber?

A couple of remainig problems: The article says the central figure is Christ, and then says he hasn't been identified, and then says he's God the father. Also the angels are said to have "cherub" faces, while cherubs are traditionally portrayed as having the faces of children.


 * I've been on break but have access to most of the sources and intend to swing through here in the next few days or so. Thanks for the tidying; I've noticed it. The sources are inconsistent about the central figure and my feeling is that the various viewpoints should be presented and attributed, but there's still quite a lot of work to be done here. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding - thanks for your post. Wings / shutters should be differentiated from the interior panels that don't move; inner should refer to inside (interior) and outer to outside (exterior). I can see this getting tricky and thanks for the copyedits. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

NYC High Line
About the work Altar (2014) by Kris Martin and its connection to the Ghent Altarpiece at the High Line (New York City): Worth mentioning? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Most Frequently Stolen Artwork in History Is…On the High Line?" by Noah Charney, The New York Observer, 30 September 2015.
 * Could be. Reading and thinking about how best to incorporate this. Thanks for the heads up. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ghent Altarpiece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017051128/http://www.aiwaz.net/ghent-altarpiece/c28 to http://www.aiwaz.net/ghent-altarpiece/c28

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk about the passion

 * The lamb stands on an altar, facing the viewer and is surrounded by 14 angels arranged in a circle,[51] some holding symbols of Christ's Passion, and two swing censers.[49] The lamb[B] has a wound on its breast from which blood gushes into a golden chalice, yet it shows no outward expression of pain, a reference to Christ's sacrifice. The angels have multicolored wings and hold instruments of Christ's passion, including the cross and the crown of thorns.

Slight repetition here. A rough stab at rewording it:


 * The lamb stands on an altar, facing the viewer and is surrounded by 14 angels arranged in a circle. The lamb has a wound on its breast from which blood gushes into a golden chalice, yet it shows no outward expression of pain, a reference to Christ's sacrifice. The angels have multicolored wings, some of them hold instruments of Christ's passion including the cross and the crown of thorns, while two swing censers.

No doubt this could be further improved, but with one of the "passions" cut it does flow a bit better. --Hillbillyholiday talk 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * instruments of the Passion (aka Arma Christi) should be linked (and renamed if you ask me), especially as there are so many other "instruments" in the article - 8 uses in total. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

4 Questions
Is there a translation of the 3 lines of greek above Mary, Father, and John the baptist? Including the symbols?

Why isn't the Cane and Able Sacrifice and Murder labels for the sculptures above adam and eve?

The bottom right panel labeled Pegrini, Isn't that Jesus leading in new followers? Since he's over-sized like the angels Mary and Gabriel? He's even pointing "this way". Too speculative?

I'm curious why their are so many variations of the swastika, some left facing, some right facing, some with shorter horizontal lines, some are very small? Or maybe some suggested reading regarding the possibilities?

First timer, sorry if I'm not following protocol. These questions are bugging me. MookJong (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The First World War
The four original panels still in the hands of St Bavo's Cathedral at the outbreak of WWI were carefully hidden by Canon Van den Gheyn. Nobody apart from him and his four helpers knew where the panels were kept. This makes me think that the assertion that panels were pilfered by the Germans during the war is inaccurate and based on legend rather than fact. The panels in the Altes Museum in Berlin and acquired from Solly were the panels that were the subject (along with a work by Dirk Boudts) of the restitution mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. This explains the bitterness of the Germans, who had acquired the Van Eyck panels perfectly legitimately almost a hundred years before. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Restoration
While I do not have the time to edit the article, note that unlike what could be concluded from some newspaper articles, the restoration is global and not focused on one element (see recent edit by an anonymous user). Ref: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/12/17/lam-gods-gerestaureerd-en-klaar-voor-terugkeer/ Regards, Voorlandt (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Levensbron
The reattribution of the Prado's Levensbron (Fountain of Life) creates a context you should examine. A clerical error made in the cataloguing of the work when it was entered into the Trinidade Collection in the secularisation of the Monasteries created a fictitious atelier of van Eyck's in 1454. That was the date it was first recorded in the Lebero de Bercel (Vellum Book, the asset register) of the Hieronimite Monastery of the Parral in Segovia, and implies "before 1454".

The general reattribution of all artworks in the 1990s, following decades of forgeries being discovered, saw a dendrochronological study of the boards it is painted on establish the tree was felled in 1420, and after ten years seasoning would have been used in the early 1430s, the time Jan van Eyck was there on a diplomatic mission to Spain. The iconic identity with the Lamb is unmistakable, and so the two must be viewed as a pair.

They fit within a wider context, too, documented in Professor Bernard Guenée's biography of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly, the Convenor of the Council of Constance 1414-18, in his Beyond Church and State. This documents the formation of the Devotio Moderna based on Jan van Ruusbroec's consolidation of the theology of the Eucharist, in his Spiritual Tabernacle. This thinking was taken up by Gerardus Groot in the creation of the Windesheim School (the two having spent a week in instruction at the very end of Ruusbroek's life), which was then adopted as the core of Renaissance theology. Professor Guenée's work stopped on d'Ailly's death, but the political drive behind it didn't, namely the Holy Roman Empire's attempts to gather support for a Crusade against the Ottoman threat to their Black Sea holdings.

Unfortunately, the Valous and Plantagenets were at each others' throat, although d'Ailly's letter of congratulations to Henry V for removing French influence after Agincourt (Gesta Henrici Quinti) shows a wider Burgundian (ie an HRE sockpuppet) alignment not recognised in English versions of the tale. Thus it was that d'Ailly's plans had carte blanche, inverting the power structure of the Concilium, restoring Rome - and then it came unstuck for the oddest of reasons. Having fired the three schismatic Popes, he placated the traditionalists with one of their own number, Martin V, a very sickly prelate not expected to live long. He didn't reckon on the Papal nuns, the sisters who care for his physical needs. They recognised lactose intolerance, and switched him to goat's milk. His health restored, he lived an inconveniently long time. On his death, the Venetian Gabriele Condulmer was annointed Eugenius IV, and hit the ground running.

d'Ailly's retinue at Constance included two young pages, Guillaume Dufay and Jan van Eyck. Dufay became a composer, and wrote the Papal Coronation Anthem Ecclesie Militate, Church Take Arms! The call was about to go out when bad news came the other way, La Pucelle had restarted the war, nobody was interested. Eugenius made the case d'Ailly had prepared, with Dufay's L'Homme Armé folk mass alongside van Eyck's two works (Yale's Professor Craig Wright's The Maze and the Warrior goes into great depth), forming an academic case conformant to the norms of the day, the quadrivium: Ruusbroec's theology, Dufay's arithmetical music, van Eyck's geometric cosmology in it's purest form, eschatology. Till Holger Borchert agrees, and would welcome research into van Eyck's diplomatic career.

It's my personal opinion the Parral work was either a study or a copy, as it's a good fit for the altarpiece of a chapel Eugenius built in Brussels at the same time, destroyed in 1955: an exact copy had been built and is now the Chapel of the European Commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.80.209 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

When Images take up over half of the page width
I can't produce a picture of my own computer monitor. But without limiting the top image box via the px method? The image box takes up well over 90% of the monitor's screen shot width. This distorts the written content, as a result. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What monitor size are you using? Screehshots to the right of what I'm seeing (desktop 1024x1024). Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Mine is an Acer, monitor. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, will look...it can often be baffeling how different set-ups render the same page so differently for individual users. One thing to say in favour of the larger size for this articel, is that it is made up of 12 very large and very detailed panels, and the lower sized image (on my screen) makes their detail almost illegible. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, suggest that we leave this sit for a few days for others to input, given we both seem to be wanting the same result, but are seeing different things....there may be a technical solution [crosses fingers]. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On my laptop using Vector 2010, text boosted to 125, images set to 220 px in preferences, it's perfect if the upright parameter = 1.8. Every browser is different. Every skin is different. Boosting text affects images, etc. I'm happy as it is now; it was too large & then too small. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding; the gutters on Vector 2022 are so absurdly large that the text only gets a teeny column & the image is overwhelming even at 1.8. Which is a problem b/c Vector 2022 is now default for logged out users I believe, so it might need more fiddling. I've not switched to a differenct browser. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Much better. Even though it still takes over half the width of the page? there's now enough room for the text. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've done another test; slightly increased the top (open) img, and reduced the lower (closed) view - so they are more proportional (in height at least).here Would like the proportion but GoodDay how does it look from your side? Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 's version works best. The test you did, had the image boxes covering over 90% of the page width again. Thus crushing the text up against the left side of the page. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok so, Victoriaearle's version it is :) Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I put the bottom one down. Agree it should be smaller. Will check other browsers in a day or two & report back. What I saw on Vector 2022 on my laptop was astonishing so will look at some other articles too - a bit busy this evening for more. Victoria (tk) 00:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No panic and thanks so much! I quite like vector 2022, except for the watchlist/my contribs etc being hard to find. Still, its in beta and onwards! Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * What did your Vector 2022 show? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For me see new third image to right. Its much better than the earlier two. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So, on Vector 2022 the first line breaks after the word "lamb", the second after the word "altarpiece" and so on. In other words the text is squished into a tiny column. It's very different than the image shown above. That's for 100% font size. My monitor is set at 1280 x 800. The highest setting is 1440 x 900 and renders everything teeny but will reset and report back in a moment. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Resetting the monitor to 1440 x 900, the first line breaks after "Altarpiece", the second after "complex". I don't keep my monitor at the setting for vision reasons and am happy w/ the images as they are now, but the differences in monitors, skins, browsers, etc. are interesting. Victoria (tk) 03:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "interesting" is one word! A bit frustrating is another, but agree that what we have now is grand, and can live with it. Goes to show though, both myself and GoodDay wanted the same result, but the page was rendering in almost opposite ways for us. No wonder wiki is so tense. Ceoil (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's actually frustrating that what one person sees in completely different that the next person. It's frustrating that all the image markup has to be changed too - see my clumsy edits this evening. I have visitors so have to stop now but see that there's some work to be done! Victoria (tk) 03:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to vent, but a que to why its so messed up is that we have to include |thumb| every time. I mean, is it not ever the case. In my day...(grumble, grumble). Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)