Miraculous Draught of Fish, from the Altarpiece of St. Peter

Konrad Witz’s sole existing, signed, and dated work is the Altarpiece of Saint Peter for the Cathedral of St. Peter in Geneva, Switzerland. It only survives partially; one of the four surviving wings is the exterior panel depicting the scene of the Miraculous Draught of Fish. It was commissioned by Cardinal Francois de Mies around 1443. Konrad Witz’s oil on wood painting represents some of the numerous ideological shifts that were occurring during the Renaissance. Witz’s Miraculous Draught of Fishes reflects the Renaissance’s changing ideas concerning Naturalism; the power of observation; the changing role of the artist in depicting the sacred; a painting’s composition; and the increasing completion amongst components of the Catholic Church.

The scene that Witz depicts on this altarpiece is most closely related to the second miracle of fishes attributed to Christ. According to the Gospel of John, seven of the apostles had decided to go fishing after the resurrection of Christ. After an unsuccessful night, a man calls to the apostles instructing them to cast their nets off the right side of their boat. After doing so, the apostles could not haul in the net because it was so full of fish. Peter realizes that the man that had called to them off the shore was Jesus. Peter jumps into the water and wades to shore to meet Jesus. The other apostles haul in the catch. Then Christ and his apostles share a meal of bread and fish on the shore. Witz has set this story off the shore of Lake Geneva in Switzerland.

The most prominent aspect of Witz’s altarpiece is its detailed landscape. Witz attended to the background with such detail that this landscape is termed as the first “portrayal landscape” in Northern European art. The view can be ...

... middle of paper ...

... find the authors’ of my articles arguments very convincing. By weaving both visual and literature evidence together the authors support their arguments almost scientifically. The articles go into more depth than the Gardner text book. Gardner does not provide as much contextual evidence to support his arguments. In this manner the articles I read are a more progressive form of art history. Also, Gardner’s text discusses Witz’s intense focus on realism, but does not discuss his important departures from realism. In actuality, Witz’s departures from realism represent the most significant aspects of the painting. Although we have learned to not read into a work too much, Witz’s hyper deliberate nature requires attention to every detail and is well suited to more than surface level analysis. My analysis of the painting reflects, and supports the author’s conclusions.