Castagno's Last Supper example essay topic

Comparison paper The topic of discussion today is on the Last Supper. Not the actual event but two distinct works of art that come to mind when one imagines what it would have been like to be present during the momentous event. The works of art that I am referring to are Andrea Del Castagno's Last Supper and The Last Supper done by Leonardo da Vinci. Both are exquisite and inspiring works of art. There are however many differences between the two. Through the course of this paper I will explore some of the differences and similarities.

The location, medium and opinions of the final product. Noted by the fourteenth-century monk Lu dolph of Saxony, 'The Last Supper, the revelation of the betrayal, entered the heart of each Apostle like a knife, causes each to reflect on his inner life and, for some, his eventual martyrdom (Hartt 264). As depicted in the bible the Last Supper took place in an upper room of a house in Jerusalem, which neither painting accurately portrays. It is very hard to say which one truly represents the emotions of all involved. One thing however is for sure, emotion was certainly captured.

Castagno's Last Supper is said to be completed around 1445-50 it is a fresco on the end wall of a refectory, the Cena colo of Sant' Apollonia, Florence (Turner 101). There are religious paintings all around the Last Supper, above is the Resurrection, Crucifixion, and Entombment. God the father rises behind, and while he is in the picture plane close to the surface of the fresco, incongruously he also appears to stand on a ledge or tomb affixed to the back wall (Turner 102). There seems to be a spatial inconsistency but more than likely it was deliberate. The chapel is designed to offer a very detailed optical illusion; therefore the space could be seen as a heavenly chapel. The ionic image of the trinity itself is a truth for all times and all places (Turner 102).

Because of the content and belief of what is taking place the painting is not considered to be explained from any one particular point of view. Castagno never intended to recreate what the Bible refers to as an upper room of a house in Jerusalem. In fact, it seems to be an independent construction one story high and roofed with Tuscan tiles, its front wall removed in the convention of a stage (Hartt 237). The rich paneling of veined marble and porphyry squares in a white marble is identical with that used for the sepulcher of Christ in Castagno's badly damaged fresco's of the Entombment and Resurrection; which are above on the same wall so that they could be read together, and they flank the central Crucifixion (Hartt 237). Unlike Castagno, da Vinci's Last Supper is all alone. There isn't any other painting above or below.

It was complete around 1495-98 some 50 years after Castagno's. It was done with an oil-tempera in plaster, unfortunately it didn't hold very well and has been repaired many times since its existence. It is 4.6 meters in height and 8.8 meters in width (Janson 433). Like Castagno's it is on an end wall in a refectory, Sta.

Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. Unlike Castagno, da Vinci's piece has the illusion that the picture never ends. The vanishing point is directly behind Christ's head but the painting is connected to the room in such a way that it appears to be part of the room, as if one could look out the window behind the figures. It has a vantage point some 15 feet above the floor and 30 feet back (Janson 433). It does not set before us a narrative account but rather an outward expression of the inward drama of recognition (Murray 7).

As I read about Castagno's piece I came across someone who said something along the lines of a lightning bolt striking Judas, metaphorically. What he was talking about is the six marble and porphyry squares behind the Apostles, they are directly above their heads. The marble is a very beautiful touch and as I entertained the gentlemen's thought it appeared to me that more than one marble panel has lightning bolts. It looks like 4 panels, starting with the one above St John, Jesus and Judas and continues with the next 3 to the right. It looks as if the apostles are in some nice restaurant contemplating a serious issue. Each one has a very different appearance; through their eyes and body gestures the story is told.

They appear to be sitting on a wooden bench seat that has a cloth material as a back. There are statues of what looks like a dragon body, wings and a women's head at both ends of the seat. The table looks like a straight line with a cloth hanging over it, the bread and wine are just present but with out any power of what they represent. Castagno's piece looks very technical, in order, as if there was a protocol.

I am really unable to view this as the Last Supper, the way I envision it. It is magnificent but it looks too staged. As if a director came in and said 'Okay, now we are going to put Judas on the other side of the table due to the future betrayer disposition and when I say go I want everyone to appear like we discussed earlier'. It feels like every apostle is only concerned with themselves. It could be the use of space or maybe the elegant design of the dining room. The room is read as a square with 6 panels on each side and 6 wide [666?

]. An observer standing in the refectory of Sant' Apollonia receives a striking impression of three-dimensional reality, and tends to attribute it to Castagno's mastery of Alberti an perspective (Hartt 265). If he had used a consistent one-point perspective, he would have placed the observer at a single point in the refectory (Hart 265). This was not Castagno's intention; he wanted everyone in the room to see the illusion. Unlike Castagno, da Vinci seems to have really captured the expressions how I see them. Although the dining room in da Vinci's Last Supper is probably more elaborate than the actual one used, it still has more of a modest feel.

The bread and wine are placed in such a way that one is forced to question the relevance or meaning. The tablecloth is obviously unfolded over the table which reveals depth and detail of the table, unlike Castagno. The apostles in da Vinci's piece are much more experiencing the event rather than just being there. There are two sets of three apostles on each side of Jesus, each one expressing themselves in a very unique way.

All but Judas have either some light on them or a radiant profile. Judas with his darkened appearance and the only one reaching for the food captures in my opinion some very real expression. It is very apparent that da Vinci had studied the apostles in great depth, noted in his manuscripts are emotions and attitudes of live models. The names of some of the models are actually known.

There is a unity between the apostles that I feel unlike in Castagno's. It is the apostles that really bring this painting alive. Leonardo wrote in his notebook, the highest and most difficult aim of painting is to depict " the intention of man's soul" through gestures and movements of the limbs-a statement to be interpreted as referring not to momentary emotional states but to the inner life as a whole (Jansen 433). It is while the painting of The Last Supper was being created that da Vinci replaced Quattrocento in visual reality by a completely different gratitude, it was known as imagined grandeur which was later adopted by other artists. The Last Supper as created by da Vinci seems to have mathematical relevance. The apostles are in threes on both sides of Jesus, six on each side, there are three windows at the end of the room the largest behind Jesus.

The sky is blue with a white light glowing off the back of the hills, it feels as if one got so rapt up in the situation that all you would need to do is look out the window and a greater understanding is right there waiting for you. This is truly a larger than life painting with human beings acting and feeling on a more righteous level than us. Both paintings express emotion and inspire the imagination. Figure design, expressions, three-dimensionality, and illusionistic messages may be some of the differences between the two; however there is one main similarity, recognition. Recognition: of the fulfillment of prophecy, of the nature of Christ, the consequences of their belief; that they were no longer involved merely in a sectarian argument with a purely local significance, but were present at the birth of a new conception of the meaning and nature of God which was to shatter the fabric of their lives and bring most of them face to face with violent death (Murray 7). Other than technical and style differences the paintings could be summed up with those words.

The paintings are very different but unfortunately I don't see how other than personal opinion someone could feel that one has more significance than the other. I feel it is up to the observer to decide for themselves.