Talk:Hubert van Eyck

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Belgium Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It represents, on numerous panels, Christ on the judgment seat, with the Virgin and St John the Baptist at His sides ... and, beneath him, the Lamb shedding His blood in the presence of angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs, knights and hermits.

There seems to be an alternative interpretation: That the enthroned figure, with a papal tiara, represents God the Father. Indeed, it is difficult to find any of the traditional attributes of Christ in the figure.

On what grounds is the figure here identified as Christ?

Sebastjan

hmmm...

Strange, at Ghent Altarpiece the suggestion that the figure has attributes of God the father has recently attracted a cite tag (now rewritten & removed by me). I think most if not all art historians see him as Christ, partly "Christ as priest, crowning the symbol of his sacrifice on the altar below" (Lane, Barbara G,The Altar and the Altarpiece, Sacramental Themes in Early Netherlandish Painting, Harper & Row, 1984, ISBN 0064301338 - pp 109 ff). There are many similar Christ as priest figures in Early Netherlandish art.

This article really needs a massive updating. Johnbod 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that it makes more sense that the figure is Christ when one considers that he is surrounded by the Virgin and John the Baptist...the Virgin obviously as his mother, and the Baptist as the one who proclaimed "Behold the Lamb of God..." with the lamb beneath them. You could also interpret the scene as similar to a crucifixion arrangement, although it's John the Baptist, not John the Apostle, at Christ's side...--Rubinia 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article to be nothing more than copy/paste from the 1911 Britannica, and it was practically unreadable. I stripped it down to the what seemed to me to be factual, documented information about Hubert. However there doesn't seem to be too much of that, unfortunately. I also referenced two contemporary sources. --Blueshifter (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an art historian but my specialization isn't in Northern Renaissance. So I was startled to find an article about "Hubert"-- I know my long ago Columbia University classes dismissed the idea of him as Jan's partner. Now I read here that Wiki is recycling a 101 year old source. Other websites seem to be following Wiki. Can a real Northern Ren expert please advise? I've heard about this happening on Wikipedia.Profhum (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of WP (2003) the (notoriously not very good) artist Bios from the 1911 EB were copied en masse, as they were PD. The article doesn't in fact now have any EB 1911 left, & is a brief but ok summary of what is documented (an inconveniently large number of mentions for your Columbia dismissal) and what scholars can now make of it. Not entirely sure what you are complaining about. Modern art history still doesn't know what to make of him, or attribute to him, & recent works tend to rather tiptoe round the subject. He can't easily just be "dismissed" but beyond that.... Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this seems a rather lightweight complaint. "I'm not a dentist but I know what I dont like". This article was scrubbed of EB a good while ago, it doesnt seem you read it before posting, Profhum. Ceoil (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entire chapter on him in Pacht and in Dhanens. Can and will add. Later. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]