The Last Supper: The story, history, and influence

By Richel Tong 301114325, HUM340


The Last Supper - The story, history, and influence

Many have heard about or referenced to the painting, Last Supper, a famous art piece that has a widely known connotation of ‘the meal before armageddon’. While there have been many renditions of the magnificent art piece, including one that was made famous by Leonardo da Vinci, Andrea del Castagno was one of the first artists that made Last Supper truly remarkable. There are different art styles and use of emotions in both Leonardo’s work and del Castagno’s work that are well worth exploring. The Last Supper by del Castagno (fig 1) was crafted in 1147-1450 “on end walls of Florentine refectories from the fourteenth through the sixteenth century” (Partridge 70) and Leonardo’s 1498 rendition (fig 1.1) was in Milan, in the refectory of the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie (Puceković 42).

Figure 1 - Andrea del Castagno’s Last Supper (1450). The use of hard edges, abundance of colours, and symmetry are prominently used. The white of the tablecloth provides an anchor and balance to which the extravagantly-detailed characters are situated around.

Figure 1.1 - Leonardo’s Last Supper (1498). Softer shading and lighter colours, which may have been caused by the deterioration of the painting itself, are found in this version. The characters in the painting are also more animated and placed more asymmetrically compared to del Castagno’s work.

A New Perspective

Del Castagno’s Last Supper was a ground-breaking piece of art in the 15th century since it was deemed as the first to utilize a one-point perspective (fig 2) (Partridge 70). With the use of the one-point perspective, one can view a wider plane of the canvas, much like how photographers today use wide-angle lenses to capture a vast landscape or a small room filled with people. It was particularly useful in this work of art since del Castagno undoubtedly wanted to capture all Christ and the twelve Apostles that accompanied him. All the traditional versions of Last Supper are drawn in the one-point perspective to fully capture the long dining table.

Figure 2 - Drawing In One-Point Perspective, by Harold Olejarz. The one-point perspective first utilized and made famous in del Castagno’s Last Supper. The environment and its perspective leads the eye towards the centre of the piece, which traditionally points towards Christ in Last Supper.

The Story

As mentioned, Last Supper has a widely known negative connotation in present culture. and is often referred when one is headed towards a so-called judgement day. For example, a ‘last supper’ could refer to situations like when a jailed inmate feasts on his favourite food before execution, or something as simple as the mentality when eating lunch before writing a final exam. The Last Supper reference is known to be used in extremely exaggerated circumstances and situations to describe one’s misfortunes.

To explain it clearly, the story behind Last Supper, according to Partridge and the Gospels, are much more religious in nature. Christ and the twelve Apostles are depicted to be celebrating by having a feast in a large dining hall in Jerusalem, where Christ declares that someone from the table would betray and kill him (Partridge 70). Christ then pointed out that it would be the one that tampers with his food, immediately dipping his bread into his dish and handing it to Judas Iscariot sitting across from him (Partridge 70). Thus Christ identifies the betrayer as Judas Iscariot. Partridge states that Christ subsequently breaks off the piece of bread and distributes it among the loyal Apostles exclaiming, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me”. Christ would also express the nature of this sacrifice, stating that this death would redeem the sins of Adam and Eve (Partridge 70).

In Leonardo’s Last Supper, he takes one extra step in making the painting a little more dramatic. As Puceković points out, Leonardo captures a slightly different time frame of the feast than del Castagno, where Christ exclaims the existence of a betrayer and the mixed emotions of the patrons around the table are captured. In reference to Christ’s dialogue above, Harris and Zucker identify in their video that Christ has his left hand reaching to a piece of the bread, and his right hand ambiguously reaching out to wine or a plate. However, with reference to dipping bread into a dish in del Castagno’s Last Supper, we can rightfully assume that Christ was actually reaching out to the dish. This is further reinforced by Judas’ action of reaching out towards the dish to complete his betrayal. Harris and Zucker then refer to Judas’ right hand, where he is tightly grasping a small bag containing thirty pieces of silver given to him by the Romans to do a sinful act upon Christ. There are small details like this in Leonardo’s rendition that make viewers think, and the deep and subtle religious messages that are contained in his Last Supper is truly remarkable.

To further comment on the narrative depicted by Leonardo, Christ’s isolation from the other Apostles, and his calm and disappointed face provides a very deep contrast with other characters in the painting who have surprised body language and facial expressions. The mixed emotions captured around the table by Leonardo are very different from what people were accustomed to seeing in a traditional Last Supper, and it very well could be why it is considered as one of Leonardo’s most powerful pieces. There are speculations and assumptions that Leonardo has seen del Castagno’s work prior to his own creative process, and that he wanted to stray away from tradition, and focus more on human emotions. As artists through the centuries struggle to differentiate themselves, both del Castagno and Leonardo have proven to challenge the norm and create works of art that are truly new and unique to their own era.

Craftsmanship on Both Ends

To praise del Castagno’s masterful craftsmanship and artistic rationale when painting Last Supper, Judas was the only patron that was placed in front of the table (Partridge 70). This was not the only designed decision that del Castagno’s made, as Partridge in his book also points out that Judas is the only patron at the table without a halo, signifying the sins that he has made against Christ. Judas’ outfit is also coincidentally quite dark and monotonous in colour when compared to the other Apostles who have royal and grand coloured clothing. All of the artistic decisions above on just the protagonists of the painting by del Castagno displays his fine attention to detail, as the aforementioned points are so subtle that an average viewer would have trouble making sense of it without first researching and studying the painting. There has also been quite a lot of attention given to the marble tiles placed on the walls behind the patrons of the table and how it was meticulously painted with fine detail and grain by del Castagno. While del Castagno’s Last Supper is frequently compared to Leonardo’s rendition, del Castagno’s version takes a more serious and solemn tone, rather than Leonardo’s dramatic and “radical revisions of iconographic tradition and mode of representation treating the theme” (Hayum 243). Del Castagno had his own style; one that was grand, with much respect to not only the characters of the painting, but also to the architecture and decoration of the environment.

Leonardo’s Last Supper displays the same, if not more, the attention to detail that del Castagno offered in his painting. While both paintings are crafted in the one-point perspective, Leonardo’s perspective is much more narrow, and thus offering more depth in the details of the environment and characters. Shadows are more prominent in Leonardo’s Last Supper largely because of the aforementioned use of a more narrow one-point perspective. The colours, whether it be the degradation of the painting material or not, are softer than del Castagno’s Last Supper, offering a more casual mood, as if Christ just invited associates and friends over for supper. The edges of the environment such as the table and food, and the facial features of the patrons are also much more round and soft compared to the other Last Supper by del Castagno. Much like del Castagno, Leonardo isolated Judas in a very careful manner; Judas is painted to be in the shadows while the others, including Christ, are in the light. Bambach in her article also points out that Christ’s head is the vanishing point to which the architectural elements such as the ceiling and table converge. In the video, Leonardo, Last Supper, Harris and Zucker draw out the hidden perspective lines that converge to Christ (fig 3) who is undoubtedly the protagonist of the painting, instinctively helping to guide the eye of the viewer.

Figure 3 - The converging lines in the video, Leonardo, Last Supper. The lines are explicitly drawn out to identify Leonardo’s brilliant intention of leading the eye towards Christ.

In contrast with del Castagno’s Last Supper, Leonardo utilizes the rule of odds, and groups together four groups of three Apostles, making the composition more interesting and asymmetrical to the eye. Referring to other versions of Last Supper, the narrators in the video, Leonardo, Last Supper, also point out Leonardo’s use of a unified composition. The unified composition that they speak of is the grouping and overlapping of the Apostles as mentioned above, in contrast to the work of del Castagno and Domenico Ghirlandaio (fig 3.1) where they have all the Apostles sit substantially apart from each other. Therefore, it adds a sense of realism as if someone were to capture a photograph in the midst of a dinner. Leonardo’s painting is much like organized chaos; odd groups of Apostles are intentionally placed around Christ, food is scattered on the table, and various emotions are shown on character faces. Unlike del Castagno’s rendition, Leonardo’s Last Supper focuses on the re-creation of human emotions and details of characters rather than lavish and luxurious environments and decorations. When contrasted to del Castagno’s painting, viewers can interpret or fabricate their own story because of the rich human emotions displayed in Leonardo’s Last Supper.

Figure 3.1 - Domenico Ghirlandaio’s Last Supper (1480), image taken from the video, Leonardo, Last Supper. Much like del Castagno’s Last Supper, the characters sit apart from each other with no overlap. Notice that Judas is also on the other side of the table, like del Castagno’s work, but unlike Leonardo’s. Also notice that the colour palette has changed slightly in comparison to del Castagno’s work, which was created thirty years ago.

Influence

After the emergence of del Castagno’s Last Supper in the mid 15th century, the painting became the talk of the town and was frequently re-created by Florentine artists, becoming “one of the earliest subjects in Christian art and one particularly popular in Florence” (Partridge 70). Ghirlandaio’s Last Supper is also an attempt to further improve del Castagno’s work, implementing more shadows and “vivid realism” to objects and the environment (Partridge 71). Partridge also identifies that Ghirlandaio utilized many symbols in contrast to del Castagno, such as Cypress trees to represent death, and orange trees to symbolize rebirth and resurrection. Ghirlandaio did however, pay homage to the previous artists and retains the halo-less Judas and his position on the opposite side of the table (Partridge 71). The different renditions of Last Supper could be seen on many monastery refectory walls to symbolize the significance of the Apostles and the sacrament of the Eucharist which formed a community (Partridge 70). Del Castagno was a very influential precedent in Florentine art, and has no doubt influenced many artists from the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Art in Tuscany praises him, stating that he “brought to painting what Banco and Donatello brought to sculpture for Florentine artists”. Hayum also suggests that the Last Supper was a benchmark for del Castagno’s overall art style, and would be considered as del Castagno’s most symbolic piece of art by modern students.

With Last Supper being widely regarded as one of the most famous paintings by Leonardo, there was however, a complication in the preservation of his piece. Bambach cites that Leonardo’s Last Supper “had already begun to flake during the artist's lifetime due to his failed attempt to paint on the walls in layers”, which resulted in a much-needed recent restoration. There were in fact, more than one restoration to retain Leonardo’s work of art. Zucker in the video, Leonardo, Last Supper, suggests that the flaw may be the perfect exemplification of The High Renaissance, with the exploration of new techniques, styles, and human experiences.

Works Cited

“Art in Tuscany.” Podere Santa Pia. N.p., N.d., Web. 30 March 2015.

Bambach, Carmen. "Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/leon/hd_leon.htm (October 2002)

Da Vinci, Leonardo. Last Supper. 1498. Milan. Última Cena - Da Vinci 5. Wikipedia, 2007. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

Del Castagno, Andrea. Last Supper. 1450. Florence. Andrea Del Castagno 001. Wikipedia. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

Harris, B., and Zucker, S.“Leonardo, Last Supper”. YouTube. Khan Academy, 10 April 2013. Web. 27 March 2015.

Hayum, Andrée. "A Renaissance Audience Considered: The Nuns At S. Apollonia And Castagno's Last Supper." Art Bulletin 88.2 (2006): 243-266. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.

Olejarz, Harold. Digital image. Drawing In One-Point Perspective. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

Partridge, Loren. Art of Renaissance Florence, 1400-1600. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009. Print.

Puceković, Branko. "Leonardo Da Vinci And His Contributions To Cartography." Cartography & Geoinformation 12.20 (2013): 34-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2015.