Dear Editor,
Most people think history class is boring but I’ve discovered the lectures about how the idea of freedom and liberty have changed in relation to how art has changed.
For example, in 1434 a painting by Jan van Eyck was interpreted in different ways. In his Arnolfini Double portrait, art historians have tried to decide if the woman in the painting is pregnant. She’s wearing a green robe. Since there is a man in black standing next to her could it possibly be a wedding? In the background is a picture of St. Margaret of Antioch who was said to be swallowed by Satan in the form of a dragon, which she escaped from.
My interpretation of this painting is that the pregnant woman represents mother earth, because of the green robe and pregnancy. The man represents wealth. The marriage of land and wealth put religion behind them.
At this time England was a second rate power and most peoples’ concept of freedom was owning land and having order under God. This led me to believe that the painting represented that idea by using figures of certain people as symbols. Now we have freedom of speech and people can paint what they believe such as Bush drawn as a monkey, Dick Cheney “trying” to shoot a quail, and much more. New ideas about freedom and liberty bring new art.
– Anna Laws

Author