Art

Different periods in history are characterized and distinguished from each other by significant developments in terms of their intellectual, political, economic, social, and artistic underpinnings. These underpinnings enable the division of the different art forms within the artworld either through the emphasis on the historical interpretation or stylistic interpretation of an artwork. The rationale behind the former lies in the effect of the social and political conditions of a period in the formation of an artwork (Beardsley 128).  The later, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that the formal structures determine the classification of art forms (Beardsley 128). Hence, changes in the socio-political conditions in a period lead to the changes in the predominant art form. In line with this, the following discussion expounds on the argument that the distinctions in the artworks throughout history are primarily caused by their stylistic differences as can be seen in their representation of the same subject in their works. This is another way of stating that artworks merely differ in terms of their intrinsic characteristics since their extrinsic characteristics are always determined by the meanings associated to the subjects depicted in their works during the period of their creation. This is apparent in the utilization and depiction of the female image in the San Vitale mosaic, Empress Theodora and Attendants and Eycks Arnolfini Wedding Portrait.

 The mosaic, Empress Theodora and Attendants (Refer to Fig. 1), portrays Emperor Justinians attempt to utilize art as a tool for imperial unification. Created during the early Byzantine period, which ranged from 527 A.D. to 726 A.D., it represented the union between the rule of the state and the church which is evident not only in the location of the work, that being the San Vitale Church, but also in the inclusion of Christian symbolic images in the mosaic, that being the chalice in Theodoras hand (Gardner, Kleiner, and Mamiya 247-248). The interesting aspect in the mosaic lies in its representation of a female imperial figure that is depicted as a sovereign who has direct power over both the state and the church. As Mclanan argues, although the emperor and the empress were pivotal personas in the Byzantine Empire, there are very few instances where in the image of the empress is included to represent the imperial power over the land (1-3). Theodoras mosaic is more controversial since it also depicts her as a member of the liturgical procession, a position which was only reserved for the Emperor during that time (Standley 164-165). The evidence of her inclusion in the liturgical procession is not only apparent in the chalice in her hand but also in the inclusion of the three Magi in the lower part of her robe (Standley 172). These two objects in her portrait signifies not only her role in the liturgical process, that being the bearer of the primary gifts, but also her role in the empire. It is important to note that her portrait is found on the opposite side of Justinians portrait (Refer to Fig. 2) which signifies their matrimonial rule over the empire. Standley however claims that a comparison of both individuals portrayal in their respective portraits manifests an emphasis on Theodoras power in comparison to her husband (172). He states, When one compares the panelsshe is taller than anyone else in her retinuehoweverJustinianis the same height as the other protagonists in it (Standley 172). This manifests that Theodora wielded greater power over her husband.

Fig. 1
Empress Theodora and Attendants

Fig.2
Justinian and Attendants
The abovementioned depiction of the female figure however does not necessarily imply that the Byzantine period allowed all women to occupy an equal footing with their male counterparts in society. As Mclanan claims, Empresses most distinctive attributewas the fact of their imperial, not their feminine, identity The prominence of women underscores aristocratic or imperial power as against the power of the people in the ancient Greek tradition (3). This shows that representations of women in Byzantine art only allowed the equality of men and women within the members of the aristocratic class. As opposed to this, later paintings, specifically those produced in the Renaissance period did not even enable the equal portrayal of both men and women for even those who belonged to the upper class of society as can be seen in Eycks Arnolfini Wedding Portrait (Refer to Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
Jan Van Eycks Arnolfini Wedding Portrait
Eycks work above was produced during the 15th century, the period of the Renaissance movement which was characterized not only by its emphasis on humanism but also its emphasis on symbolism (Gardner, Kleiner, and Mamiya 403). In comparison to the artists during the Byzantine period who utilized various metals, enamels, and precious stones in the creation of their mosaics, artists during the Renaissance period used paint enamels mixed with oil and other substances in their canvasses (Gardner, Klein, and Mamiya 457). Furthermore, artists during the period focused on depicting three-dimensional images as realistically as possible in a two-dimensional frame by utilizing the one-point or two-point perspective (Gardner, Kleiner, and Mamiya 458). In the case of the Arnolfini Wedding Portrait, its focus on humanism is apparent in the subject of the portrait, that being the marriage ceremony between an extremely wealthy Florentine banker and the daughter of a rich Flemish family (Lewis and Lewis 293). The portrait utilizes symbols that instruct the viewer on the domestic relations enabled by a marriage during the period. An example of this can be seen in the chandelier behind the couple which symbolizes their wealth. The optical illusion created by the chandeliers position behind the couple seems to position it on top of the couples outstretched hands which signifies that their union also involves the union of their families wealth. The portrait, in this sense, presents a visual marriage contract between Arnolfini and his wife. In this contract, the woman is owned by the man. Within the portrait, this is evident as Arnolfini looks straight ahead whereas his wife looks at Arnolfini with her head bowed down suggesting her compliance to Arnolfinis power and role within the family.

Within this context, it is apparent that one of the primary distinctions between the art works produced during the Byzantine period and the Renaissance period lies in their depiction of the female figure within their works. This is another way of stating that although the female figure remains a subject of art throughout the ages, the depiction of her image varies in line with the predominant belief during the time of a works production. In the case of Empress Theodora and Attendant, this is evident as it is possible to portray a female figure in power given that she is a part of the aristocracy. Eycks portrait however shows that, during the Renaissance, even membership in the upper-class prevents a female from being depicted with an equal footing with her male counterpart. This merely shows that the distinction in the artworks from the Byzantine to the Renaissance period does not merely lie in the materials or style used in a portrait. They also lie in the manner in which these materials are utilized to forward a specific social belief. Although both works are similar as they represent the female figure, they vary in terms of their representation of her figure.