Historical fun fact: The phrase, “That will cost you an arm and a leg” came from art commissions that charged for additional the body parts. If you wanted more than your face in the painting, you had to paid for it.
Thomas Gainsborough, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, (1750). National Gallery, London. A double portrait that included inherited land as a back drop would have been very expensive. Not to mention hiring the great British artist Gainsborough to paint it for them $$.
A portrait that included arms and legs was more expensive than a portrait of a bust (head and shoulders) alone.
Before the invention of the camera, European aristocracy had their portraits painted for all sorts of reasons: to show wealth, as a way of introducing oneself to a potential life-partner (a kind of medieval dating app), or for prosperity to share with your descendants, (think all those portraits of kings hanging in the halls of Buckingham Palace) if you had limited resources, you could only afford to have your head and shoulders painted, that is, a bust portrait.
If you had more wealth, you could afford to have your arms painted, and if you had serious cash, you could afford to pay an ungodly amount for the whole kit and caboodle; your arm and leg painted into one portrait. So, something very expensive was comparable to paying an artist for an arm and a leg.
Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-portrait. (1659). National Gallery of Art, Washington. At the end of his life, Rembrandt experienced grave poverty. He had lost most of his commissions, clients, and prestige. He resorted to painting himself as he could no longer afford to hire a model.
Always interested in chiaroscuro, the Latin word for the play of light against dark, Rembrandt deliberately posed himself so the light would hit his face, move down his shoulders, and end on his hands. As an artist, the eyes and hands are important to include in a self-portrait as both are integral to the act of painting.
