Knowing Holbein’s Objects: An Object-Oriented-Ontology Analysis of The Ambassadors

3.1 Key Concepts

Holbein’s famous painting The Ambassadors provides an excellent case study for applying Harman’s object-oriented aesthetics. The Ambassadors is a large oil painting on oak panels, measuring 207 cm × 209.5 cm, that depicts two richly dressed men standing on either side of a two-shelved table laden with various objects. The figures are Jean de Dinteville, the French ambassador to England, on the left, and Georges de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, on the right. The table between them displays an array of scientific instruments, including a celestial globe, a terrestrial globe, various types of sundials, and a lute with a broken string. The upper shelf contains objects related to the heavens, while the lower shelf includes items associated with earthly pursuits. A rich Turkish carpet covers the upper shelf. In the upper left corner, a partially hidden crucifix peeks from behind a green curtain. Most strikingly, an anamorphic skull stretches across the bottom of the painting, only fully recognizable when viewed from a specific angle.

In OOO terms, the skull operates as a real object (RO) that withdraws from direct representation, in tension with the sensual qualities (SQ) through which it appears in distorted form. The skull disrupts the coherent pictorial space and our ability to absorb the painting’s content in a straightforward literalist fashion. It injects an element of aesthetic strangeness into the work, hinting at a deeper reality of objects that the sciences and worldly knowledge of the ambassadors cannot master. As Harman writes, “Whatever else art may be, it cannot have traffic with any form of literalism.”^[41]

Moreover, the skull implicates the beholder in the aesthetic effect. We cannot grasp the object except by moving our body to the side and peering at it from an angle – we must “perform” the object, so to speak. In this way, The Ambassadors exemplifies Harman’s point that the artwork is not just the physical painting, but the RO-SQ tension that arises through the beholder’s participatory enactment. The skull “is unparaphraseable”^[42] as a mere literal symbol of mortality; its disturbing yet alluring presence exceeds any simplistic one-to-one code.

So, in terms of Object-Oriented Ontology, Holbein exploits the tension between real and sensual to create an artwork that is irreducible to literal knowledge or the ambassador’s worldly command of objects. The painting comes alive precisely by rupturing its own coherence and making the beholder a key part of the aesthetic situation. It is a powerful example of art as a non-literal form of cognition that, as Harman says, points to “objects that need to be approached from the side rather than head-on.”^[43]

3.2 The Objects

The Ambassadors is known for its rich symbolism and the inclusion of various objects that hold significance in the context of the painting’s historical and social milieu. To analyze The Ambassadors using OOO, we can start by identifying the key objects in the painting and consider the roles they play as agents of meaning and interaction. In OOO, an object does not have to be something physical, solid, simple, inanimate, or durable, “it need only be irreducible either downward to its components or upward to its effects.”^[44]

The two ambassadors. As human objects, Dinteville and Selve are central to the painting’s narrative. Their presence signifies diplomacy, power, and the complex relationships between states during the Renaissance.

The anamorphic skull. Tomilin^[45] situates anamorphosis as a Renaissance optical oddity that influenced the science of image processing. The work’s innovative use of anamorphosis also aligns with early modern mannerist experiments favoring paradox, distortion, and unstable compositions over classical harmony and perspective. As a self-reflexive technique, anamorphosis problematizes mimesis. Furthermore, issues of optics and perception connect the work to contemporary developments in science and theories of vision. The uncertainty created by anamorphosis parallels debates over new Copernican cosmological models displacing traditional Ptolemaic astronomy. The painting encapsulates multivalence at a time of tremendous epistemological upheaval. In the context of OOO, the skull introduces a non-human object that actively engages with the viewer and challenges their perception of space and reality.

The celestial globe. This object represents the exploration and understanding of the cosmos during the Renaissance. It also symbolizes the intellectual pursuits of the ambassadors and their engagement with the world beyond their immediate surroundings.

The terrestrial globe. The terrestrial globe complements the celestial globe, emphasizing the ambassadors’ worldly connections and their roles in navigating the complex political landscape of their time.

The scientific instruments. The scientific instruments in the painting are all state-of-the-art German designs from the early sixteenth century.^[46] The various scientific instruments in the painting, such as the quadrant, sundial, and polyhedral sundial, underscore the importance of knowledge and discovery during the Renaissance. These objects also highlight the ambassadors’ status as educated and sophisticated individuals.

The lute. The lute represents the realm of music and the arts, adding another layer to the ambassadors’ multifaceted identities. This object also serves as a connection between the human and non-human elements in the painting, as the lute’s broken string may symbolize discord or the fragility of life. Furthermore, a symbolic analysis of the juxtaposition of the lute (symbolizing Venus) and the case of flutes (symbolizing Mars) could point to the parents of Harmonia, reinforcing the theme of reconciliation set against the backdrop of religious and political turmoil in Europe in the 1530s.^[47]

The open book. The open book on the bottom shelf is a copy of a mathematical treatise, further emphasizing the importance of knowledge and the intellectual pursuits of the ambassadors.

The religious artifacts. Various religious artifacts, such as the crucifix partially hidden behind the curtain and the ornate carpet, remind the viewer of the religious and spiritual dimensions of the ambassadors’ lives.

3.3 Object Agency

OOO focuses on the agency and essence of objects themselves, rather than just seeing them as constructs of human perception or social forces. In The Ambassadors, we can apply this to the various objects depicted in the painting.

The two human figures can be seen as objects with their own essence and agency. They are not just representations of social identities (as ambassadors), but beings unto themselves with their own presence. The various instruments on the table also have their own objecthood – they are not just symbols of Renaissance learning or wealth, but exist as objects in their own right with specific material properties.

The anamorphic skull, from an OOO perspective, has a strange objecthood of its own that exceeds any symbolic meaning. Its distorted, oblique presence gives it an uncanny independence and agency that transcends its status as a visual trope. It refuses to be seen straight on and evades our attempts to reduce it to a familiar symbol. The strange distortion of the skull object suggests it has its own alien essence that escapes our attempts to categorize it. It is a portal into a realm of objects that don’t conform to human systems of signification. The skull’s weird objecthood hints at a whole world of objects retreating from human access.

The scientific instruments in the painting, as demonstrated by Dekker and Lippincott, have their own complex histories and functions, independent of human perception: “All of the instruments in the painting, with the exception of the pillar dial, are of new and innovative design.”^[48] This aligns with OOO’s emphasis on the autonomy of objects.

The geometrical floor tiles, the curtains, the books, the candles – all of these can be analyzed as objects with their own self-contained essence and existence, rather than just as props or symbols to represent certain ideas. The lush materiality and detail of the painting suggests that objects have their own life and dynamism that we as humans can participate in but do not fully determine.

The chains of office are not just passive symbols of authority, but active participants in the painting’s network of relations. Their materiality – the weight of the metal, the intricacy of the links – contributes to what Graham Harman calls their “sensual qualities.”^[49] However, their full essence as objects remains withdrawn, inaccessible even to the ambassadors wearing them. The chains have a history and future beyond this moment, connecting to broader networks of power and diplomacy that exceed the painting’s frame.

The partially drawn curtain is an object that actively shapes the space of the painting. The curtain’s partial concealment of the crucifix enacts what Harman terms “allure,”^[50] hinting at hidden depths that can never be fully revealed. The curtain’s agency in creating mystery challenges human attempts to fully comprehend the scene.

The fur-trimmed robes as luxurious garments are not just passive indicators of status, but active contributors to the painting’s aesthetic and material reality. Their sensual qualities – the softness of the fur, the sheen of the fabric – are immediately apparent, but their withdrawn reality includes the animals they came from, the labor that produced them, and their future decay.

The table cover does more than provide a backdrop; it actively participates in creating the painting’s world. Its intricate patterns and textures form what Morton calls a “mesh”^[51] of interconnections with other objects. Its existence as an imported luxury item points to vast networks of trade and cultural exchange that lie beyond the painting, exemplifying the way objects always exceed their immediate context.

The geometric tiled floor is not just a surface but an active participant in organizing the painting’s space. Its patterns create a visual rhythm that interacts with other objects in ways that escape full human intention or comprehension. It is the floor’s encounter with the anamorphic skull, for instance, that creates a distortion that hints at object–object relations beyond human perception.

In each case, these objects resist reduction to mere human use or symbolism. They have what Harman calls “vacuum-sealed”^[52] essences that withdraw from direct access. Their presence in the painting suggests a vast world of object–object relations that humans can only partially glimpse. Finally, the painting itself is an object with its own essence and agency. It is not just a representation of objects for human consumption, but an object-populated world unto itself. The objects inside the painting may have more alliances with each other than with the humans gazing at the external surface of the canvas. The painting withdraws from being seen just as a collection of meaningful symbols, existing independently as an object swarm. The painting itself becomes what Bogost might call an “alien phenomenology”^[53] revealing a world where objects interact in ways that exceed human understanding.

This OOO perspective invites us to see “The Ambassadors” not as a static representation of human subjects and symbolic objects, but as a dynamic assemblage of object-actors, each with its own agency and essence, participating in complex networks of relations that extend far beyond the frame of the painting. The lifelike materiality of the objects in the painting suggests they have their own existence independent of human use or meaning. The fur trim, the glass instruments, the wood grain – these details foreground the objects themselves rather than just what they represent. They seem to continue living even when not being observed or instrumentalized by humans. The books on the shelf in “The Ambassadors,” for example, contain knowledge and potential energy that exists whether humans are interacting with them or not. Their “life” continues in their withdrawn reality, beyond our immediate perception or use.

The objects in the painting are not just passive props for human activity. They shape and determine the way the space of the painting is constructed. The tiled floor, the tapestry, the table – these objects organize the whole scene and suggest they have their own active, space-producing essence. They are generative matrices from which meaning emerges, rather than just surfacing on which we project meaning. There is a sense of hidden excess in the objects, an inner life we can’t fully access. What lies inside the books, what other objects are stored on the shelves? What other encounters have these objects participated in before coming together in this scene? These excess dimensions hint at the autonomy and dynamism of objects.

Thus, an OOO reading of Holbain’s painting is fundamentally different from Žižek’s aforementioned Lacanian interpretation. An OOO perspective attributes agency and influence to the objects themselves, independent of human perception or interpretation. Objects in the painting have autonomy: they are not just passive recipients of human meaning or interpretation, but active participants in the creation of the painting’s reality. The objects in Holbein’s painting interact with each other in ways that are not necessarily mediated by human consciousness. For example, the way the floor tiles interact with the skull’s distortion is a relationship between objects that exists regardless of human observation. The space of the painting is not solely constructed by human artistic intention or viewer perception, but by the objects themselves.

In contrast, Žižek’s Lacanian approach, while acknowledging the power of objects (particularly the anamorphic skull) to shape perception, still centers on human subjectivity and ideology. For Žižek, objects are symbolic: they gain meaning through human perception and ideological frameworks. The anamorphic skull, for instance, becomes meaningful when viewed from a specific angle, symbolizing the way ideology shapes our reality. In this human-centric interpretation, the focus is on how objects affect human perception and understanding, rather than on the objects’ independent existence. Finally, Žižek’s emphasis is on the lack. Objects like the anamorphic skull represent a lack or void in human understanding, rather than having their own positive existence.

The key difference lies in the agency and independence attributed to the objects. In the OOO view, objects actively construct the space of the painting through their own properties and interactions. In Žižek’s view, objects shape our perception of space and meaning, but this shaping is still fundamentally about human subjectivity and ideological positioning. Thus, an OOO perspective challenges us to consider the painting not just as a human artifact to be interpreted, but as a collection of objects with their own realities and relationships, which we can only partially access or understand. It’s a shift from seeing the painting’s space as constructed for human viewing to seeing it as a result of object–object interactions that we happen to observe.

The vast array of objects – instruments, artifacts, tools, furnishings – represent a dizzying plurality of beings in the universe, all carrying out their objectile agencies irrespective of human intervention. OOO invites us to see each of these as a node in a flat ontology, a cosmos teeming with life at every scale.

A tension emerges between the human figures confidently displaying objects they think they possess and dominate, and the potential withdrawal or estrangement of those objects, which may operate by logics not fully under human control or comprehension. Objects can never be fully mastered. The two human figures see themselves as subjects encountering a world of objects they can classify and control through reason. But from an OOO view, they are objects themselves – objects among many others, caught up in encounters and relations they don’t fully determine. Their confidence is undercut by their own objecthood and entanglement in a world of other objects escaping their mastery.

The objects have their influences on each other that exceed human intention or signification. The skull’s distortion may be partly the result of its encounter with the uneven tiled floor – an encounter staged for our benefit, but arising from the objects’ own intersection. The books are organized on the shelf by an internal logic, but also push and pull each other into place based on their own mass and bindings. There are hidden objects present but concealed from view. What is inside the lute case, the box on the top shelf? What other objects were present in the room but left out of the painting’s selective “snapshot”? These absent objects also shape the meaning and configuration of the objects that are included. They are imagined objects generating effects.

The encounters between objects in the painting escape human perception or comprehension. The painting suggests an excess of object encounters that remain mysterious. Time and history are embedded in the objects, even as they are frozen in the painting. They bear the marks of duration – the instruments have been handled many times, the books have been read and returned to the shelf, and the floor tiles have felt the tread of countless feet over many years. OOO invites us to see this temporal depth, the objects’ accrual of latent histories which they carry in the present.

3.4 Object Withdrawal and Interaction

A key concept in OOO is the notion that objects always withdraw from one another, meaning that they possess an essence or reality that cannot be fully accessed or understood by other objects: “OOO holds that real qualities – no less than real objects – withdraw from both sensual and intellectual experience.”^[54] In The Ambassadors, the various objects (e.g., ambassadors, skull, globes, instruments, lute, book, and religious artifacts) possess their own qualities and meanings that are not entirely reducible to their relationships with one another or with the viewer. However, these objects also interact and form connections, creating a complex network of relationships that contribute to the overall meaning of the painting.

Harman argues that objects have a dual nature: their sensual qualities that we can perceive, and their real essence that withdraws from all relations. He states, “objects withdraw from relations … unable to make contact, yet somehow managing to do so anyway.”^[55]

In “The Ambassadors,” we can apply this concept to objects like the scientific instruments. Harman notes, “The reality of objects is not exhausted by their presence for humans or other entities” (Harman, 2018, p. 9). The celestial globe, for instance, has sensual qualities we can observe – its color, shape, and inscriptions. However, its real essence includes its internal structure, the historical knowledge it embodies, and its potential future uses, all of which withdraw from our immediate access. Moreover, many of the scientific instruments in the painting are not accurately depicted or are non-functional as shown. For instance, “None of the dials in the painting depicts a scientific instrument ‘displaying’ time.”^[56] This could be seen as an example of how objects always withdraw from full human comprehension, a key concept in OOO.

The relationship between the celestial and terrestrial globes in the painting exemplifies the interactions between objects that OOO emphasizes. Both globes represent different aspects of the world and human knowledge, and their juxtaposition in the painting creates a connection between the intellectual pursuits of the ambassadors and their roles in the broader political landscape of the Renaissance.

Furthermore, previous historical and functional analyses^[57] of the scientific instruments depicted in the painting have shown how the instruments relate to each other and to broader scientific developments, forming a network of object relations that doesn’t necessarily center on human actors. This aligns with OOO’s interest in object-object relations. But the objects also exceed their relations: the instruments have qualities and histories that exceed their immediate presentation in the painting. For example, the celestial globe is linked to Schöner’s work: “Johannes Schöner is definitely the author of Holbein’s celestial globe.”^[58] It should be noted that Dekker and Lippincot’s article is primarily focused on analyzing the scientific instruments in Holbein’s The Ambassadors painting, and it doesn’t directly address Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). However, while these interpretations require some extrapolation from the article’s content, they demonstrate how a detailed study of objects, even in an art historical context, can provide material for OOO-aligned perspectives.

3.5 Flat Ontology

OOO proposes a “flat ontology,” which means that all objects, regardless of their scale or complexity, have equal ontological status. In the context of The Ambassadors, this means that the human subjects (Dinteville and Selve) are not privileged over the non-human objects in the painting. All objects, from the ambassadors themselves to the seemingly insignificant objects like the lute or the mathematical treatise, are considered equally important in the construction of meaning.

The distorted skull in The Ambassadors can be seen as an example of flat ontology in action. Despite its initially puzzling appearance, the skull holds equal ontological importance with human subjects and other objects. Its presence in the painting demands attention and reflection, asserting its agency and challenging the viewer’s perception of reality.

Furthermore, this is also reinforced by the scholarly analysis of the scientific instruments,^[59] where the detailed analysis of each instrument, from globes to dials, while focused on their history and function without directly addressing OOO, puts them on equal footing with human subjects in terms of importance to the painting’s interpretation. This echoes OOO’s rejection of human-object hierarchies. The article’s focus on the objects themselves, rather than solely on their meaning for human viewers, could be seen as challenging correlationist’s views that always relate objects back to human perception.

4.1 The Ambassadors as Objects and Mediators

In our quest to delve deeper into the nature of objects and the intricate web of meaning they convey, we now turn our focus to the two ambassadors in Holbein’s renowned painting. In the context of OOO, we must acknowledge that these human objects possess their own agency, interacting with other objects in the painting and contributing to the artwork’s rich tapestry of meaning. By analyzing the ambassadors as objects coexisting within a network of other objects, we can gain a deeper understanding of their roles and the relationships they forge within the painting.

The ambassadors interact with various non-human objects in the painting, such as the celestial and terrestrial globes, the scientific instruments, and the religious artifacts. These interactions reveal the multiple dimensions of their identities as diplomats, scholars, and spiritual beings. By engaging with these objects, the ambassadors imbue them with meaning and significance, highlighting the interconnectedness between human and non-human entities.

Drawing inspiration from Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, we can view the ambassadors as mediators within the painting’s complex network of objects. As mediators, Dinteville and Selve facilitate connections between different objects and enable the flow of meaning and agency between them. For instance, the ambassadors’ engagement with the scientific instruments and the globes reflects the intellectual and political pursuits of the Renaissance, while their proximity to the religious artifacts underscores the spiritual dimensions of their lives. The relationship between the human subjects and the religious artifacts (the hidden crucifix and the ornate carpet) reflects the interplay between worldly power, diplomacy, and spirituality. These objects together highlight the complex roles of the ambassadors and the influence of religion on their lives and work.

The juxtaposition of the lute with the various scientific instruments in the painting creates an interaction that emphasizes the balance between the arts and sciences during the Renaissance. These objects together represent the multifaceted intellectual pursuits of the ambassadors and the cultural values of their time.

Harman also introduces the concept of “vicarious causation,” where objects influence each other indirectly. He explains, “Objects confront one another only by proxy, through sensual profiles found only on the interior of some other entity.”^[60] In the painting, we might consider how the lute and the case of flutes interact. Their proximity may symbolically suggest a musical harmony, as indicated before, but from an OOO perspective, their relationship exists beyond human perception, in a realm of object-object interaction we can’t fully access.

The skull serves as a reminder of the transient nature of life and the inevitability of death, contrasting with the power, wealth, and intellectual achievements represented by the ambassadors and their surroundings.^[61] The interaction between the partially hidden crucifix and the anamorphic skull creates a subtle tension between the religious and mortal aspects of existence. While the crucifix represents spiritual salvation and the eternal realm, the skull is a stark reminder of the transient nature of life, suggesting a balance between the spiritual and the temporal.

As mentioned in a previous response, the interaction between the celestial and terrestrial globes highlights the interconnectedness of the human and cosmic realms, as well as the importance of exploration and understanding of both the Earth and the cosmos during the Renaissance. Moreover, the painting’s references to the quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music) can be interpreted as a vanitas, highlighting the transience of worldly learning.^[62]

The interaction between the ambassadors’ elaborate clothing and the other objects in the painting communicates their social and political status. The luxurious clothing and accessories, combined with the presence of the scientific instruments, globes, and religious artifacts, create a rich visual tapestry that underscores the complexity of the ambassadors’ identities and their roles in the historical and social milieu.

4.2 Withdrawal and Flat Ontology

The concept of withdrawal, as proposed by Graham Harman in the context of Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), can be applied to various objects within Holbein’s painting The Ambassadors. This notion suggests that objects never fully reveal themselves to other objects or to the viewer, maintaining an aura of inaccessibility and mystery. By examining the withdrawal of other objects in the painting, we can further explore the hidden layers of meaning and the enigmatic nature of the artwork.

In line with Harman’s OOO, we can also consider the withdrawal of the ambassadors as objects. The concept of withdrawal suggests that objects never fully reveal themselves to other objects, maintaining a sense of mystery and inaccessibility. In The Ambassadors, the enigmatic expressions and postures of Dinteville and Selve hint at the hidden aspects of their lives and the deeper layers of meaning that lie beneath the surface. The partially concealed crucifix and the anamorphic skull further reinforce this notion of withdrawal, inviting the viewer to contemplate the ambassadors’ complex identities and the broader historical context in which they exist.

Perhaps the most striking example of withdrawal in the painting is the anamorphic skull, which only becomes discernible when viewed from a specific angle. Its distorted appearance creates a sense of mystery and elusiveness, forcing the viewer to engage with it in a unique way. The skull’s withdrawn nature not only challenges the viewer’s perception of space and reality but also serves as a reminder of the transient nature of life, with its underlying message of mortality remaining partially concealed. The anamorphic skull positioned in the foreground exemplifies the concept of withdrawal – while peripheral and distorted, refusing full view, the skull asserts its strange agency and power over the scene. Its oblique, inscrutable presence hints at hidden dimensions inaccessible to the ambassadors who confidently dominate the center of the painting’s world.

Structural examination also reveals a complex geometrical framework underlying the work, with a lower zone of terrestrial goods balanced against the heavenly sphere of the upper portion.^[63] From an OOO perspective, the thickly painted floor tiles exert their own force and influence on surrounding objects through their massive physical presence and striking orthogonals that impose order and structure on the space. The tiles’ material vitality subsumes the figures and objects placed atop them.

At first glance, the viewer may appreciate the celestial and terrestrial globes for their aesthetic and symbolic value; however, their withdrawal resides in the intricate details and the vast knowledge they embody. The globes, as objects, encapsulate the ambassadors’ intellectual and political pursuits and their engagement with the world beyond their immediate surroundings. However, they also withhold the intricacies of celestial mechanics, earthly geography, and the complex web of political connections that lie just beyond the viewer’s grasp. The prominent placement of the terrestrial and celestial globes in the upper half of the painting gives them visual weight and significance. Their grand, spherical forms assert the globes’ own gravities as objects independent of human intentions.

The various scientific instruments, such as the quadrant, sundial, and polyhedral sundial, showcase the importance of knowledge and discovery during the Renaissance. While these objects highlight the ambassadors’ status as educated and sophisticated individuals, their withdrawal is evident in the specialized knowledge required to operate and interpret these instruments. The viewer may appreciate their aesthetic beauty and symbolic value, but the full understanding of their function and the scientific principles they represent remains hidden. The scientific instruments spread across the table have intricate details that suggest they hold histories of specialized use and knowledge exceeding what the ambassadors can grasp. The rich details of the scientific instruments, such as the intricately rendered dials, scales, and mechanics, foreground their complexity and material vitality as objects independent of human use. Their technical precision embodies histories of specialized knowledge exceeding the ambassadors’ mastery. Their meticulous rendering gives each instrument a sense of autonomy.

The religious artifacts, including the partially hidden crucifix and the ornate carpet, also exhibit a sense of withdrawal. Their presence in the painting serves as a subtle reminder of the spiritual dimensions of the ambassadors’ lives, but their partially concealed nature invites the viewer to contemplate the deeper implications of faith, piety, and the role of religion during the Renaissance. The withdrawal of these objects reflects the complexities of religious beliefs and the enigmatic nature of the divine.

Flat ontology emphasizes the equal ontological importance of all objects in a given context, regardless of their size, complexity, or perceived significance. In The Ambassadors we can identify several additional examples of flat ontology in the way that various objects contribute to the painting’s themes and narrative. For instance, the open book on the bottom shelf, containing a mathematical treatise, might at first seem like a minor detail. However, its presence holds equal ontological importance with the other objects in the painting. The book contributes to the overall theme of intellectual pursuits and underscores the ambassadors’ interest in knowledge and learning.

The quadrant, sundial, and polyhedral sundial may appear as mere decorative elements, but they possess their own agency and contribute to the painting’s meaning. These instruments represent the importance of science and empirical inquiry during the Renaissance, highlighting the ambassadors’ engagement with the pursuit of knowledge.

The crucifix, partially concealed behind the curtain, is an example of an object that might initially be overlooked due to its placement within the painting. However, its presence holds equal ontological significance, as it serves as a reminder of the religious and spiritual dimensions of the ambassadors’ lives, adding depth to their roles as diplomats and statesmen.

The carpet might seem like a mere decorative background element, but it also contributes to the painting’s themes and narrative. It can be seen as a symbol of wealth, luxury, and the ambassadors’ high social status, while also potentially representing the cultural exchange between East and West during the Renaissance.

The elaborate clothing and accessories worn by Dinteville and Selve, such as their fur-trimmed robes and chains of office, might be perceived as simply details that add to the visual richness of the painting. However, these objects also hold equal ontological status, as they communicate the ambassadors’ power, wealth, and social standing, providing insight into their roles and identities. The luxurious textures of fur, velvet, metal, and wood evoke the sensuous gravity and agency of mundane objects like furniture, cloth, and accessories as they shape the scene through juxtaposition and contrast. Their ornate materiality subsumes the human figures. The partially open curtain reveals and conceals objects in the shadows behind it. The curtain’s agency shapes the composition through selective revelation, hinting at hidden object dimensions.

The figures are framed and boxed in by massive objects like the globe, heavy cloth, and hard floor. The composition piles objects around the ambassadors, asserting the dominance of object vitalities. The lute’s snapped string and precarious tilt contrast with the rigid symmetry of other objects. The lute implies objects carry inherent fragilities and potentials that humans cannot control.

The distorted skull peering up at the figures relies on the whole composition to generate its anamorphic effect. No single object generates meaning alone; their relations create the skull’s odd agency. The varied scales, from skull to floor tiles to globe, suggest no hierarchy in objects. Size and scale emerge from objects’ relations within the composition, not intrinsic properties.

4.3 Object Interactions and Networks

The objects in the painting are not fixed in meaning or essence. They are mutable, open-ended, and in constant relation with other objects. The lute, for instance, takes on different tones and qualities depending on whether it is being observed closely, glimpsed peripherally, or ignored in the shadow of other objects. Its identity emerges from these encounters and could evolve differently in different contexts. Objects are events, not static forms.

The boundaries between objects are ambiguous and porous. Where does the fur trim end and the fabric behind it begin? How much does the darkness of the shelves become the darkness of the unpainted regions at the edges of the canvas? Objects bleed into each other, fuse and influence each other, rejecting a neatly divided world of discrete, individual entities.

Objects of different scales co-exist and interact: the micro textures of the floor tiles, the macro contours of the room, the close-up books and distant doorway. Size and scale are relational qualities that emerge from the proximities and connections between objects, not absolute properties of objects themselves. The painting suggests a democracy of scales.

4.4 The Painting as an Object World

The encounter between viewer and painting is itself an entanglement of objects, each exerting their own forces on the other. We do not merely gaze at objects but collide and interact with them, even at a distance. We are all bound up as objects together – painter, painting, figures, viewer.

There are alternative ontologies at work, other ways of parsing and organizing the world that don’t conform to the human systems of knowledge the figures in the painting represent. The distorted skull hints at these other logics that organize experience in non-human ways – geometries of distortion, rhythms of concealment and revelation, symmetries we can sense but not describe or define. The world contains other worlds.

Even the empty spaces in the painting are not simply void but hold latent potentials. The green curtain, dark shelves, and blank walls imply inaccessible objects beyond the painting’s frame that exert ghostly effects. By focusing on how specific objects assert agency compositionally in these ways, a concrete OOO visual analysis supports the argument that Holbein portrays a world where object vitalities subsume the human through their complex geometries, ornate material presences, and glimpses into occulted dimensions – a radical ontological realm.

In all these ways, OOO provides a way to see The Ambassadors as a painting object which is itself a world of interrelating objects – a flattened field where entities of all kinds forge alliances, imprint upon each other, fuse into hybrids, evolve across scales, and withdraw from our grasp. The painting becomes an infinite, unfolding encounter rather than a fixed representation – an ambiguous, open-ended world rather than a declarative statement. And in this world, humanity is just one object among many.