A good overview here of Leonardo’s great work in Milan. This is a book review by Michiko Kakutani of Ross King’s latest book (NYT, 10/30/12). Take a look.
Professor M. Och
ARTH 114 and ARTH 115: Introduction to Western Art, University of Mary Washington
I found this article really interesting. I have never really thought about Da Vinci’s process for creating the Last Supper, so the part about that was fascinating, especially the fact that Da Vinci put a nail in the wall where he would paint Jesus’s face. I also thought King’s opinion, that Leonardo used faces he had seen in his life as models for the apostle’s faces, interesting. I think that would have been extremely possible. As a photographer, myself, I have often times taken various aspects from different photos I have seen and reinvented, often adjusting or changing them, in my own work. I think that Leonardo could have done the same thing. He could have used different features from various faces he had seen and used them to create the faces of the apostles.
Although I have not read King’s book, Kakutani’s gives a brief but insightful review. King discusses details of the painting that at first sight are not recognizable. One that took me by surprise was the fact that it is 80 percent restoration and 20 percent Leonardo’s actual work. For the painting to be one of Leonardo’s most famous its a shame that all of his hard work did not last. It is still admirable that he attempted to experiment with a varied pallet, instead of the preferred method of fresco painting. Other details that King talks about is Leonardo’s use of dark colors on Judas, making him look evil and the halo on Jesus created by the open windows above him. All of these details show how well thought out Leonardo’s painting was.
I thought this was very interesting. I thought the process that Leonardo took to create this piece was genius. I like the way that he marked Jesus’ face, as well as the subtle aspects and details of the painting. This process shows how much effort Leonardo put into the painting, and show his creativity and genius.
Just like the Picasso piece, the ages at which these famous artists painted some of their greatest works baffles me. It is amazing to think that by his 40s Leonardo had not really painted any of his masterpieces and was still a menagerie of ideas and plans. But the fact that he chose to paint the wall in that church over any other project he was working on is what really stuck with me. If he had chosen any of his other projects to pursue one of the greatest paintings of all time may not of existed.
The thing about the review that stood out the most to me was the controversy and the problems associated with the restoration and preservation of the work. It is remarkable that despite everything it has been through, it is still visible and intact. However, all the restoration that has gone into it makes for an interesting discussion on what Leonardo’s true work and true intentions were. It is very difficult to decipher what the original work looked like and it seems as though no one knows for sure. Regardless, this work is highly debated and incredibly controversial without even getting into the conservation efforts.
The article was very insightful and told you about Leonardo’s thinking and process in creating The Last Supper. I liked how he had painted arcitecture in the backround of the painting and how Jesus was easily recognized with his placement in the center. I liked how schiacciato was used with the space behind the table leading to the window which showed outside. The back wall had a interesting faded purple color that I also liked. I enjoyed Andrea del Castagno’s painting of The Last Supper better though, because I liked the powerful square invigorating paintings behind the dinner table. I just see Castagno’s painting as more creative and powerful than Leonardo’s.
I never really thought about how Leonardo used other parts of the painting to highlight or darken other figures, such as the window behind or the type of colors used on Judas. I also didn’t know how much the painting has gone through. We’re lucky to still have it. This was a interesting article.
Im glad that King took the time to write about the painting. It is a panting most people know but they do not why or how Leonardo did it. King adding his opinion contributes because it raises questions that others are most likely asking also. Also, he included what was reworked by restores so we do not get Leonardo’s work mixed up with someone else.
I think it is very interesting how King depicts John as what other art critics saw as Mary Magdalene. I can see why Leonardo would change the image. Having Jesus in the center with space between him and his disciples shows that he is the most important part of the image. King said that John was supposed to be leaning on him, sleeping as it has been said in other versions, but having him away from him leaves the mystery of what is actually happening; if Jesus is giving the Eucharist or telling them that one of his disciples will betray him.
I have to admit I was disappointed when I read that most of this painting has been restored and isn’t Da Vinci’s original painting, especially because it’s one of his most well-known and gorgeous works. I’ve never seen the painting in person, so it blew my mind when I found out how vast it was. The effort that Da Vinci put into it was unreal–he used geometry to make sure Jesus was the center of painting, he painted Judas, the betrayer, with a cheaper paint than the rest of the disciples, and there’s a great chance he spent time just studying people’s faces in order to determine the features for each individual disciple. It’s unfortunate that he spent so much time on this mural only to have it begin disintegrating less than 25 years later, not to mention the damage it went through during WWII and messy restoration attempts. Although the article says that there’s not a lot of “substantially new” information in King’s book, I think it would be interesting to read because he explains a lot of historical context that could make it easier to appreciate just what Da Vinci was trying to depict.
It’s interesting how the author put Leonardo’s aspirations into perspective by saying instead of inventing mind-blowing creations, he instead painted a wall. One never thinks of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” as being a sort of second choice. Leonardo’s genius is apparent in every aspect of the painting. From the way he created the piece to the smallest detail, there is much to be learned about the art of painting and the artist himself. I particularly enjoy the slight details that bring so much to the image. For example, the shading of Judas’ face to the outlining of Christ with a window. These elements are small and may seem insignificant by themselves, but within the context of the work, convey an incredible amount of meaning and importance.