Portrait of a Woman of the Hofer Family

In the National Gallery in London, there is a uniquely significant portrait dating back to 1470. The artist, as well as the owner of the portrait, remains unknown. We have only one clue: a family name inscribed in the upper left corner, suggesting origins from Southwestern Germany. Unfortunately, the family name was common during that era.

During the classical and medieval periods, commissioned portraits conveyed wealth and class, affordable only to the upper echelons of society. Even you are wealthy, still having your portrait painted it expensive.

In this painting, the lady’s face is perfectly captured, suggesting she is around 25 years old, neither a young girl nor an elderly woman. Her smile is subtle yet alluring.

Her attire features expensive fabrics, not black but woven brocade, marking her wealth. She spares no effort in showcasing her affluence, adorned with intricate clasps that draw attention. Additionally, she wears a white headdress, expertly rendered with meticulous folds and transitions. The artist showcases his skills in the intricate details.

But Why does the lady have a fly in her head?

There is a curious detail: a pesky fly positioned in the middle of the painting. The lifelike representation prompts viewers to instinctively attempt to flick it away.

The curator of the National Gallery believes it to be a playful prank by the artist and the owner, adding an interactive element to the artwork. When we examine the lady’s facial expression, it seems as though she is amused by our attempts to flick the fly away, as if she knows we have fallen for the prank.

Alternatively, I hold a different opinion. Commissioning a portrait was a costly endeavor, not accessible to everyone. Unlike other portraits, this one lacks the artist’s signature and the lady’s exact name. I speculate that the lady and her family struck a deal with the artist for her portrait, perhaps through installments. However, when they could not fulfill their financial obligations or attempted to renegotiate, the artist subtly undermined the painting’s value by including the fly, rendering it less desirable. He did not want to destroy the portrait because obviously, it is a masterpiece, so he found this solution.

This speculation is supported by the fact that the owner did not even claim her name backward or show significant ownership of the artwork. Shortly after its creation, it was abandoned and later gifted to the British Gallery by others.

The fact the commissioning a portrait is unimaginable expensive, at that time, no one would have spent such a significant amount of money on a mere prank.

On the other hand, I cannot help but consider another speculation put forth by the British Gallery. She may have been quite whimsical, going beyond the norms of her era and classical beauty standards, endeavoring to immortalize herself and resist being forgotten by including the fly detail without providing her name. Just as forget-me-not flowers convey a message of remembrance, perhaps she intended the same sentiment to endure through the artwork.