The Arnolfini Portrait, painted by Dutch artist Jan van Eyck in 1434, depicts two richly dressed figures, a man and a woman, standing hand-in-hand in an upstairs room which most likely functioned as a place to receive visitors. A common interpretation of the painting is that it is meant to serve as a marriage contract of sorts. The artist’s signature is both elaborate and central to the painting, appearing to be drawn on the wall behind the couple. The reflection in a mirror beneath the signature shows two additional figures just inside the door, one of whom is presumably van Eyck himself. It is argued that these two individuals constitute the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal, and that van Eyck’s signature acts as a testament to this role. Additionally, the female subject appears pregnant, which many interpret as a sign that this is a marriage of necessity.  More recent and informed scholarship, on the other hand, questions the legitimacy of this analysis. An unmarried woman would have worn her hair down, while the female figure is wearing her hair up in a headdress. Furthermore, the female may not be pregnant after all, as female virgin saints were often depicted similarly, and her size may be a symbol of fertility rather than of pregnancy.

In this passage, the author is primarily concerned with

​A​ describing the creation and details of a portrait
​B​ condemning a critic’s faulty reasoning in evaluating a painting ​
C​ presenting an alternative interpretation of a work of art ​
D​ demonstrating that an interpretation of an artwork may be incorrect  
​E​ discussing a depiction of historical marriage customs