What can the Arnolfini Portrait teach us about ToK ?

The Arnolfini Portrait and ToK: Layers of Meaning

Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait (1434), can demonstrate some of the most important ideas in Theory of Knowledge. Although painted nearly 600 years ago, this extraordinary artwork demonstrates how knowledge is constructed across all Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) — not just the Arts, but also the Natural Sciences, Mathematics, History, and the Human Sciences.

To make sense of its complexity, we can examine the painting at three key levels: object, subject, and interpretation.

Object Level: From Observation to Assumption

At the object level, we seek objective knowledge. What do we see? This is a painting in egg tempera on wood, showing a man and a woman standing in a richly furnished room. They touch hands, and their dress — heavy robes lined with fur — suggests wealth. We notice objects around them: a small dog, discarded footwear, an ornate chandelier, a convex mirror, a bed, and a few oranges.

Even here, we encounter our first important ToK insight: assumptions influence knowledge. From the observation that they are touching hands, many infer they are a couple. This leap from objective details to subjective assumptions happens in all AoKs. Knowledge often builds upon inference as much as upon direct observation.

A second ToK lesson concerns the relationship between the parts and the whole. The incredible detail — from the wax drips on the chandelier to the minute reflections in the beads by the mirror — contributes to a synergistic whole. The Arnolfini Portrait is not simply the sum of its parts: it achieves something greater through the interplay of details. Knowledge, similarly, is rarely just cumulative; the interconnections between pieces of information create meaning beyond isolated facts.

Subject Level: Labels and Their Power

Moving to the subject level, we consider what and who is depicted. Here, our focus shifts from raw observation to identifying meaning.

Art historian Erwin Panofsky famously argued in 1934 that the subjects are Giovanni di Nicolao di Arnolfini and his wife, Giovanna Cenami. His interpretation has become so dominant that the painting is now widely known as The Arnolfini Portrait. Yet, this is a powerful reminder of another ToK truth: labelling shapes understanding.

Once a label is attached to knowledge, it frames future interpretation. But Panofsky’s identification is not without problems: historical records show that Giovanni di Nicolao di Arnolfini married Giovanna Cenami in 1447 — thirteen years after the painting’s date, and six years after van Eyck’s death. This discrepancy highlights that knowledge we take for granted may rest on shaky foundations, and what seems settled today may be revised tomorrow.

Beyond identity, we must also ask: what are the figures doing? Objectively, we can say they are standing together, the man raising his right hand, the woman holding her robe. However, interpreting what they are doing (a marriage ceremony, a betrothal, or a memorial act) requires us to move into a third, even more complex layer: interpretation.

Interpretation Level: Evidence and Contestability

Interpretation involves reading significance into the elements we observe — a process fundamental to all knowledge production. Mathematicians, scientists, historians, and artists alike must interpret their evidence to generate knowledge.

Panofsky introduced an influential interpretative framework: iconology. He argued that the Arnolfini Portrait serves as a pictorial marriage certificate. According to him:

• The joined hands symbolise fides manualis (faith by hand) — a traditional marriage gesture.

• The single lit candle represents God’s presence.

• The small dog symbolises fidelity.

• The mirror, with scenes from Christ’s Passion, highlights the sanctity of marriage.

• Van Eyck’s conspicuous signature implies he acted as a witness.

This reading suggests that knowledge can serve multiple functions simultaneously. The painting is aesthetic, legal, and symbolic all at once — a point worth remembering when considering the functions and purposes of knowledge in ToK essays.

Yet, interpretation is inherently contestable. Alternative readings exist. Art historian Lorne Campbell suggested in 1998 that the painting might be a memorial portrait, noting the extinguished candle above the woman’s side, her pale stillness, and the sombre mood. Margaret Koster developed this further in 2003, proposing that Giovanni di Nicolao di Arnolfini may have commissioned the portrait in memory of a deceased wife — not Giovanna Cenami.

Thus, a single piece of evidence — the painting — supports vastly different interpretations. This leads us to a fundamental ToK lesson: perspectives and interpretations are crucial but inherently variable across all AoKs.

Interpretative knowledge allows us to grasp meanings not immediately apparent, but it is also more vulnerable to challenge. Whether we study history, science, or the arts, interpretation is both powerful and precarious.

Final Summary

Through the Arnolfini Portrait, we see how observation, labelling, and interpretation operate across knowledge production. We learn that:

• Assumptions infiltrate even the most ‘objective’ knowledge.

• Labels shape (and sometimes distort) understanding.

• Interpretation brings depth to knowledge but increases contestability.

Ultimately, van Eyck’s masterpiece invites us to remember that what we know is never as simple, certain, or stable as it first appears.

Stay curious, stay critical — and, as ever, stay ToKtastic!

Daniel, Lisbon, April 2025