Author Options:

Hidden Messages Answered

Painting Title - "Arnolfini Marriage" Artist - Johannes van Eyck Year - 1434 People in Painting - Merchant Giovanni Arnolfini and wife Giovanna Cenami


Something just occurred to me, since this thread bobbed up again - the groom's hand. It's in a pose of blessing or benediction (think of the way RC priests make the sign of the cross in the air). Could this be a priest getting married? (That's not a controversial thought - celibacy is a relatively modern idea for Christian clergy).

It does look like the beginning of a benediction doesn't it... hmmm I think you're on to something

Either that, or he is offended by some really horrible odor coming from her side of the room who cut the cheese?

did you just make this up?


In the mirror, the closest people are the happy couple, from behind.

The others... the artist? And his assistant? Maybe he's just showing great fidelity to what he sees?

Think about it - if this was a posed photograph, the mirror would show the photographer as well.

Oh... your right... but I am just reading this out of a book.

Is the book authored by an internationally recognized art scholar, or some guy named "Crazy Lenny"?

it's a book called "DO NOT OPEN". It has a bunch of stuff that I might share later. It has a bunch of secrets.

They're only dangerous in communist countries.

Have you ever read "Fahrenheit 451" ?

Ah yes, I was just rereading that...scary how similar it is to reality.

We all have Seashells in our ears.

The populace has largely (and willingly-that's an important bit) stopped reading literature.

We have giant televisions. We think of the characters in the programs as our families and care about actors and actresses as if they were family.

Corruption of government and responsibility at many levels.

Dangerous children who care nothing for anyone.

A society that as a whole does not care much for anyone.

Those like the character "Clarisse", who care about others, and take time to think and notice things are increasingly labeled "oddballs".

Obviously all coincidence. But there are rather interesting parallels between the two worlds.

Oh. Just saw your comment below. Guess we're on the same page...

yeah, and with some schools banning certain classic literature, we are doomed to become an uneducated goob of people, if something isn't turned around soon.
The political scene is not making much of a positive dent in things.

I am starting to think politicians need some fries to go with that shake.

It was Ray Bradury's 1953 classic Sci-fi book on the dangers of book banning/burning. In the story, set in the not so distant future, "firemen" went around to houses that were reported to be housing / hiding books. They went to the house and would take them all outside and torch them (the firemen of the future set fires, not put them out).

Your comment reminded me of the book, because, in his day, he saw the country taking a turn in that direction. The road is not traveled down so swiftly now, but we are still going down that same road.

We allow children access to art (pornography) but deny them access to literary works like Shakespeare and the Bible (from a literary standpoint) because of violent content. Plugging one hole in the dam, we drill 4 more.

We allow children...&etc.

That's a good point right there. From another perspective, I saw a PG-13 movie the other day with my mom, and we were both shocked by the amount of violence in it. Now you take a movie like The Breakfast Club or Goodwill Hunting; there's not much violence in those, but they're both rated R for language that I hear everyday at school.

So the book was written in 1953? A lot of books I've read from that era (Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, etc) take a dystopian outlook on the future. I like the genre, so I might read try to read Fahrenheit 451 one of these days.

Good, Bradbury is a good story teller, so it reads easily enough, and it is easy to suspend one's disbelief and really get into the story, even if you dislike SF. :-) That is what I like about Asimov too.

Being a book doesn't give it credibility. If it were info straight from the artist, than you would know what it really signifies.

I meant to respond to: "No, the candle is a marriage candle." "I got the info from a book... " which implies that your interpretation was right because it's from a book. You may not have meant it that way, but it's how I took it.

I think one thing we can take away from this paintinf is that the Arnolfini were an ugly, ugly couple.

When did women start evolving so they didn't have horns like the one in the picture? ;-)

So then, when did cows start to walk upright on their hind legs?? LOL

Hey justin.......I also found this message written in a foreign language.........But I will not post it because when translated, it would violate the "be nice" policy. If you want to see it, its actually someone's avatar......

do you really want to read a message with bad language?

stronger_one. all but one of his comments is removed tho....

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! Im like crying in laughter

No, the candle is a marriage candle.

Question, isn't a marriage candle normally lit by the two about to be married? Symbolizing a joining of flames into the synergistic one flame...

I don't really know...I just read that it was a marriage candle.

:-( I hope you do not think I am this way in order to mooch. I never expected anything to be "given me", and was very shocked to get the shirts.