Ryan Rhodes
“The Last Supper” is a biblical scene that has been consistently prominent throughout art history, especially in Western art tradition, since the 6th century CE. This scene is biblically and theologically significant for its being both the point at which Christ reveals his death is near and that he has been betrayed by one of his disciples, as well as for being the institution of a sacrament, the Eucharist. Throughout art history this significant historical event has been portrayed in a variety of ways, as should be expected. These differences can be explained by changes in artistic technique from continual innovations in capturing art’s formal elements - the evolution of art, per se. However, differences between eras should also be attributed to the prevailing cultural values and theological commitments of the day. These cultural and theological motives have arguably been more significant in the growing prominence of depictions of this scene in the centuries following the Renaissance, as well as in the biblically-unbridled manners in which this meal has been portrayed since. As you will see, “The Last Supper” has taken on dramatic new forms in recent years, and all signs suggest that this trend will continue, priming this famed meal for a future full of reimagining and repurposing for socio-political motives.
Unknown, Codex purpureus Rossanensis (Rossano Gospels), mid-6th cent. CE, Ink on dyed vellum parchment, Diocesan Museum, Rossano Cathedral
One of the earliest-dated illustrations of “The Last Supper” comes from a codex discovered in the cathedral in Rossano, Italy. Historians suggest this set of illuminated Gospels was written following the reconquest of the Italian peninsula by the Byzantine Empire, and one can see how the art bears resemblance to Byzantine art from that time. Formally, the figures at the table are all flat, and they are crammed impossibly-tight upon each other, with the exception of Jesus and the disciple on the far right, who are reclining as the rest of the men at the table historically would have. This non-naturalistic representation reflects the Byzantine concern with expressing the presence of spiritual realities, rather than physical realities, through their art. The main emphasis in this rendition of the meal is Judas’ act of betrayal, which is made the center of attention by his dynamic reach into the bowl which is at the center of the image.
Unknown (Byzantine master), The Last Supper, ca. 1100 CE, Fresco, Sant'Angelo in Formis (Basilica: Capua, Italy)
Little work has been done historically with this particular fresco, which is again in Italy and is suggested to have been made under Byzantine influence also. Once again, one can see the familiar semi-circle table with only Christ and another disciple reclining as well as the emphasized act of betrayal by Judas. In this image, there is also a fuller portrayal of the meal at hand, with two goblets of wine and a large piece of meat depicted, as well as each man receiving his own piece of bread. Though it perhaps looks more naturalistic than the previous image, it is still a far cry from being genuinely naturalistic; the spacing of the disciples at the table is still unrealistic, and the faces of the men are also very stylized. Though one can see advancements in the portrayal of the table and of surrounding architecture, the non-naturalistic scene again points to an emphasis on the spiritual reality at hand via this painting, rather than its physical reality in history.
Ugolino da Siena, The Last Supper, ca. 1325–30 CE, Tempera and gold on wood, with engaged (modern) frame, 38.1 x 56.5 cm; painted surface, 34.3 x 52.7 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.1.7
Ugolino emerged as an understudy of Duccio and thus as a product of the Proto-Renaissance, which began to emphasize spirituality and transcendence less and instead focused more on humanism and reflecting the natural world. Like Duccio’s “Last Supper,” one can finally see here the celebration of a meal taking place. The disciples are full participants in the meal - dynamic and animated in conversation and gesturing with one another. Judas’ betrayal is no longer shown by being the solitary dynamic act in the image, but rather he is shown as the traitor by his lack of a halo, a deliberate break in the visual rhythm established by Ugolino. One can also begin to see the attempt at linear perspective here, as Ugolino tries to make a convincing room that extends backwards into space. It should also be noted that this small image was placed in the bottom left corner of a large altarpiece, which is telling of the lack of importance given to the subject as a theme of its own until the Renaissance.
Dieric Bouts, Central Panel of Altarpiece of the Holy Sacrament or Triptych of the Last Supper, 1464-68 CE, Oil on panel, 88 x 71 cm, St. Peter's Church, Leuven
Bouts’ depiction of “The Last Supper” marks the first time this meal is displayed in the central panel of an altarpiece. Clearly a product of the Northern Renaissance, one is able to see their interest in relocating biblical narratives into their contemporary scenery. The Flemish background of Bouts’ native city, Leuven, and the interior architectural design are particularly telling. The people surrounding Christ at the table look unfamiliar to the typical depictions of the disciples. It is proposed that these are accurate portraits of members of the Leuven Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament, who commissioned this altarpiece. Also, Bouts adds three servants to the dinner, each of which are dressed in modern-day clothing, who have been suggested to be more members of the confraternity responsible for commissioning the altarpiece. This image is very naturalistic in its depiction of human beings seated around a table, and it shows a growing mastery of linear perspective as well.
Leonardo Da Vinci, The Last Supper, 1495 CE, oil and tempera on gesso, pitch, and mastic, 15.1 x 29.0 ft, in situ in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie
No depiction of “The Last Supper” has been esteemed anywhere near Leonardo’s, which is considered to be the pinnacle of images of this meal. A product of the High Italian Renaissance, Leonardo worked from a commitment to understand the world through science and reason, and he thus employed scientific tools to make the scene look as naturalistic and believable as possible. Interestingly, he painted this in the refectory of a monastery, where the monks would share silent meals, and this is significant because the table and its contents (the tablecloth, dishes, utensils, etc.) are all said to reflect their corresponding elements at the monastery. Therefore, Leonardo sought to bring the reality of “The Last Supper” alive to the world of the monks who will mull over it daily. It is worth noting the technical ways Leonardo portrays significance as well. He uses symbolism to foreshadow the rest of the narrative, with Peter holding a knife to represent him cutting the soldier’s ear off, as well as Judas being depicted with dark skin, a problematic tradition which symbolized having a dark heart.
Paulo Veronese, The Feast in the House of Levi, 1573 CE, Oil on canvas, 18.3 x 42.0 ft, Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice
While Leonardo’s “Last Supper” became the template from which many after him worked, the Venetians were able to give a new vision to the scene in the following century. Originally painted as a “Last Supper” for the refectory of San Zuan Polo, the work was eventually removed and renamed, after coming under backlash for its portrayal of a lavish pagan banquet rather than a pious final meal between Christ and his disciples. One can just make out Christ and his company in the center of the image, gathered around the white table in a manner reminiscent of Leonardo. However, one’s attention is not intended to linger there for a long time, as the splendor of the Venetian architecture and the silk-laden attendees are meant to draw attention to the grandeur of this feast. This painting serves as an extreme example of a theme which becomes prominent - that of “The Last Supper” becoming a mere excuse to portray a sumptuous banquet. However, we are able to see through these past three examples that “The Last Supper” has become an important scene through the Renaissance as one that is able to capture the poignancy of these men breaking bread together for the final time.
Renee Cox, Yo Mama’s Last Supper, 1996 CE, Cibachrome print, 2.58 x 12.9 ft, formerly at the Brooklyn Museum of Art
There are myriad examples of modern-day reimaginings and repurposings of “The Last Supper” to choose from, each spurred by socio-political motives. Cox’s is actually not a painting, but a series of five photographs which have been placed together in a montage. Her photographs depict 11 black men as disciples, a white Judas, and herself - a Jamiacan-American woman - as Christ. She claims to use Leonardo’s “Last Supper” as her template, but she sought to emphasize a number of things with her rendition. First, she wanted to empower women, asserting that they could preside at the head of the table, even a table of men. Second, she claims it was a protest against the invisibility of African-Americans in art, which led her to completely flip the Westernized picture of 12 white figures and a darker Judas. Finally, she intended to foster feelings of cultural and racial self-worth among people of color, and she does this by placing them at the very heart of this biblically and historically significant scene. One should expect to continue seeing modernized reimaginings of the famed meal on par with (and potentially even more extreme than) this one in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment