I laughed.
So did I !
Really? Pre-modern descriptions of cold-weather milking often mention the warmth of cowsheds, enclosed spaces with a bunch of large ruminating mammals giving off body heat.
You can still get chilled hands while milking, but all the descriptions I’ve seen mention warming the hands on the cow’s udder or flank, which is something modern hand milkers still do.
And yes, it’s very clear that the object shown in the painting is exactly the same sort of thing that is described and shown in many, many other sources as a foot warmer. I think we need to distinguish between stuff that is a genuinely obscure and disputed historical mystery and stuff that we personally just happen to be uninformed about. There seems to be no reason to think that art historians in general are at all puzzled or confused about the nature and function of the foot warmer in Vermeer’s painting.
So, not really “speculation”.
Thank you for this. I knew the object appeared in other artworks but I couldn’t remember specific examples off the top of my head.
Of course I don’t really know.
I just think it could have happened.
That’s all.
All art is subjective, tho’.
Missed edit…I just looked online. There are 100s of varieties of milking hand heaters and warmers for sale. And much advice how to keep your hands warm while milking.
I rest my case.
Speaking as someone with a fine arts degree, a history of theatrical performance, and a lifelong interest in art, I do agree that the experience of art is subjective. How the viewer responds to a piece of music, or cinema, or ballet, or sculpture, is entirely up to that viewer.
That does not, however, mean that anything goes. That is a misinterpretation of the principle of subjectivity.
^^^ This is not an oil painting.
^^^ These men are not Belgian.
And this ^^^ is not a hand warmer.
“Art is subjective” does not mean you can say anything you want about a piece of art and expect it to be accepted and respected.
Okay. I’ll shut up about it.
If that foot warmer is made of wood, why does it not catch on fire? What is the heat/fire source in that pottery piece?
I suppose glowing coals. They wouldn’t set the wood on fire if they were far enough from the top and in a ceramic vessel.
Hmmm. Doesn’t seem like there is much room above the pottery/ceramic piece. What about babies or kids getting burned, or pets?
But what would have been an alternative? Open fire is downright out, because it would set the whole device on fire, but they didn’t have petroleum or carbide then. Maybe whale oil? I think it was coal or charcoal. Or a flat wax candle.
An actual fireplace in the kitchen or living room? Or an oven?
Heating an entire space consumes vastly more fuel than simply providing a hot object that you put next to your feet.
I’ve actually used a foot-warmer in the Netherlands. I went to a service at the Oude Kerk in Amsterdam. The church was vast, and unheated. It was February. In front of the chairs set out for the congregation was what looked like a kneeler, except that it had a metal upper surface, and an electric cable linked it to a wall socket. The upper surface was warm; you kept your feet on that rather than on the (extremely cold) stone floor.
The church was still freezing, but at least you weren’t worried about getting frostbite in your extremities.
If it’s anything like existing examples, there’s sometimes a copper or brass pierced screen layer under the wooden top, which would stop the wooden layer from catching fire. But being a dense hardwood means it wouldn’t catch fire just from sitting above hot - but not blazing - coals. It might char a little on the surface facing the coals.
Thank you.