Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper - Research Paper Example

The Last Supper Works of art and creation have been recorded in the history of art for their respective reasons. Some works have become renowned owing to controversies centered on them. Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting ‘The Last Supper’ raised a controversy with respect to its style and process of painting especially after Dan brown mentioned this art as a fresco painting in his work ‘The Da Vinci Code’. The painting has been created in the eating area of the monks in Santa Maria delle Grazie church at Milan. However several arguments have been raised against this comment. This paper concentrates on some of the key points, which prove that this is not a fresco and rather a new style experimented by Da Vinci in order to gain more freedom in his creation. Apart from this other issues like the typical features of renaissance paintings have been misinterpreted by Brown and hence by the readers of his work. The interpretation and comments put forward by Brown in his work The Da Vinci Code regarding the pointing ‘The Last Supper’ might be challenged on logical and historical grounds. The original painting of The Last Supper has become indistinct by now and this is quite unlike a typical fresco painting. A fresco artwork is done on wet plaster and then after the plaster gets dried up, the paint remains there and is permanent. There is hardly any flexibility for the artist to change or use variation after the plaster dries up. Such paintings are permanent and usually distinct even after several years. Leonardo used a different style called the ‘tempera’ where he experimented with egg yolk and vinegar along with oil painting and used this mixture to paint on dried plaster (‘The Last Supper’). This idea did not quite work out become the paint began to come off soon and most of the beautiful creation is no longer clear to the human eye. This very condition proves based on scientific logic of the chemicals used in the painting proves that the painting of ‘The Last Supper’ was not a fresco painting. Mr. Fradelle who wrongly presented the difference in status of the painting by Leonardo with the fresco painting by Montorfano, which is in the same room, put forward an opposing viewpoint to the issue under discussion. The painting of Leonardo is in the “worst state of ruin” (Smith, 6) and this is in contrast to the other painting, which is done in fresco. Now, Mr. Fradelle assumes that The Last Supper was initially one in fresco and then in oil, which led to the dilapidation of the artwork. He point of argument was that one cannot “rely on fresco; that it depends on the circumstances of the wall, or the preparation of it to receive the painting” (Smith, 6). Now, this argument again presents “logical blunders” (Smith, 6) and such opponents’ views regarding criticisms of fresco work have been contradicted in practical terms from time to time. Therefore our issue under discussion with respect to the painting of Leonardo being a fresco work has been proven wrong in this context. Another supportive ground to fresco is presented here by Sir C. Eastlake in front of the Committee of Fine Arts, which makes the case of this painting of Leonardo stronger. This painting of The Last Supper is hardly viewed to the human eye sixty years after its creation. It has been stated by an old Belgian painter that fresco painting lasts around nine times more than any ordinary painting. Mrs. Merrifield who quotes this painter says, “more it is exposed to the rain, the better it lasts” (Smith, 3). However points have been raised against this point with respect to the fact that early fresco paintings have waned at a rate, which is even higher and there is high doubt that even rain could preserve them. Now in this respect we may bring forth the issue of Montorfano’s painting created in the same room and hence on the same materials which built its walls. However the status of Montorfano’s work and that of Leonardo differ and this again points to the fact that Leonardo used a new style on dried plaster. Another issue highlighted in Brown’s work in the V shaped space which he has interpreted as the “chalice, or the sacred feminine” (Boa and Turner, 68). He ignores the typical technique of Renaissance painting where the V shaped space is usually maintained to keep the balance in the artwork. Here one might argue against the symbolic representation claimed by the author. The painter has kept this space between the two clusters of figures painted. He maintains symmetry between the four groups of trios painted with Jesus at the center and the attitudes of the disciples are contradictory to one another. The theme is the betrayal of Jesus. In this painting Judas looks away from Jesus reflecting guilt and Jesus addresses his apostles, saying that one of them would betray him. The artist has concentrated on the reactions of the followers of Jesus keeping wonderful symmetry even amongst the depictions of contradictions. Here is another main issue of controversy, which might be raised against the interpretation of the painting in brown’s work. Doubts might follow from here regarding the validity of his theology and the authenticity of the scholarly research conducted before this composition (Boa and Turner, 67-68). Brown, without any regard to the typical style of the renaissance has emphasized upon the presence of Mary Magdalene in the painted scene where the V- shape is a part of the start of holy marriage. The V (feminine power) and the pyramid (symbolizing the male power) form the start of David. According to the author this painting also symbolizes that Mary as the wife of Jesus. On the other hand research shows that the use of space was practiced and applied in paintings during the renaissance period such that the creation is “weighed and balanced in such a way that its dispersal averages out for us in a coherent manner – that we can take the action we see in a painting and feel that its distribution makes sense.” (Stella, 65). Again, a different purpose and reason of utilizing space in a painting has been presented. Therefore the interpretation presented by brown on this painting and the readers of his work can easily be challenged on the grounds of typical renaissance style. From the above presentation of arguments two aspects have come up. First the artwork which has sometimes been claimed to be fresco work is actually a new style experimented by the Leonardo Da Vinci who took four years to finish the painting. The next issue pertains to the depiction of the unseen or in other words the origin of the code explained by Brown in his work. This opinion can be opposed mainly on the grounds of the art technique pursued during Da Vinci’s time and the purpose of the V-Shaped space could be different form what Brown interprets it to be (feminine power). The conclusion derived from the art piece is therefore based on mere imagination especially since the critics of today were not alive when this piece was composed. However going by sheer logic one should expect this space to simply create the balance and distributional symmetry of the figures in the painting. Again the author calls it a fresco work, which again cannot be the case, based on the reasoning given above. Thus logical analysis and historical evidence both challenges the comments of Brown about this painting. Works Cited 1. Boa, Kenneth and John Alan Turner. The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code: The Truth Behind the Writings of Dan Brown, B&H Publishing Group, 2006. 2. The Last Supper, LisaShea, n.d. available at: http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html (accessed on July 6, 2010) 3. Smith, Sydney, The Edinburgh review, Volume 123, Oxford: Oxford University, 1886. 4. Stella, Frank. Working Space. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 1986 Read More