The Last Supper is, of course, one of the most mysterious works of the genius Leonardo da Vinci, with which only his Gioconda can compete in terms of the number of rumors and conjectures.
After the publication of the novel The Da Vinci Code, the fresco decorating the refectory of the Milanese Dominican monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie (Chiesa e Convento Domenicano di Santa Maria delle Grazie) attracted the attention of not only art history researchers, but also lovers of all kinds of conspiracy theories. . In today's article, I will try to answer the most popular questions regarding the "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci.
1. WHAT IS THE LAST SUPPER BY LEONARDO CORRECTLY?
Surprisingly, the “Last Supper” only in the Russian version has such a name, in the languages of other countries both the biblical event depicted on the fresco by Leonardo, and the fresco itself has a much less poetic, but very capacious name “The Last Supper”, that is, Ultima Cena in Italian or The Last Supper in English. In principle, the name more accurately reflects the essence of what is happening on the wall painting, because before us is not a secret meeting of conspirators, but the last supper of Christ with the apostles. The second name of the fresco in Italian is Il Cenacolo, which simply translates as “refectory”.
2. HOW DID THE IDEA OF THE LAST SUPPER COME TOGETHER?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to make some clarity about the laws under which the art market lived in the fifteenth century. In fact, the free art market did not exist then, artists, as well as sculptors, worked only if they received an order from rich and influential families or from the Vatican. As you know, Leonardo da Vinci began his career in Florence, many believe that he had to leave the city because of accusations of homosexuality, but, in fact, everything was most likely much more prosaic. It's just that Leonardo had a very strong competitor in Florence - Michelangelo, who enjoyed the great favor of Lorenzo de Medici the Magnificent and took all the most interesting orders for himself. Leonardo arrived in Milan at the invitation of Ludovico Sforza and stayed in Lombardy for 17 years.
Pictured: Ludovico Sforza and Beatrice d'Este
All these years, da Vinci not only made art, but also designed his famous military vehicles, strong and light bridges and even mills, and was also the artistic director of public events. For example, it was Leonardo da Vinci who organized the wedding of Bianca Maria Sforza (Ludovico's niece) with Emperor Maximilian I of Innsbruck, and, of course, he also arranged the wedding of Ludovico Sforza himself with the young Beatrice d'Este - one of the most beautiful princesses of the Italian Renaissance. Beatrice d'Este was from a wealthy Ferrara, and her younger brother. The princess was well educated, her husband idolized her not only for her amazing beauty, but also for her sharp mind, and, in addition, contemporaries noted that Beatrice was a very energetic person, she took an active part in public affairs and patronized artists.
In the photo: Santa Maria delle Grazie (Chiesa e Convento Domenicano di Santa Maria delle Grazie)
It is believed that the idea to decorate the refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie with a painting on the theme of the last supper of Christ with the apostles belongs to her. The choice of Beatrice fell on this Dominican monastery for one simple reason - the monastery church was, by the standards of the fifteenth century, a structure that surpassed the imaginations of the people of that time, so the refectory of the monastery deserved to be decorated by the master's hand. Unfortunately, Beatrice d'Este herself never saw the Last Supper fresco, she died in childbirth at a very young age, she was only 22 years old.
3. FOR HOW MANY YEARS LEONARDO DA VINCI WROTE "THE LAST SUPPER"?
There is no correct answer to this question, it is generally accepted that work on the painting was started in 1495, went on intermittently, and Leonardo finished around 1498, that is, the year after the death of Beatrice d'Este. However, since the archives of the monastery were destroyed, the exact date of the start of work on the fresco is unknown, one can only assume that it could not have begun before 1491, since Beatrice and Ludovico Sforza were married in this year, and, if we focus on the few documents that have come down to our days, then, judging by them, the painting was at the final stage already in 1497.
4. IS THE LAST SUPPER BY LEONARDO DA VINCI A FRESCO IN THE STRICT UNDERSTANDING OF THIS TERM?
No, strictly speaking, it is not. The fact is that this type of painting implies that the artist must paint quickly, that is, work on wet plaster and immediately on a clean copy. For Leonardo, who was very meticulous and did not recognize the work right away, this was completely unacceptable, so da Vinci invented a special primer from resin, gabs and mastic and painted The Last Supper dry. On the one hand, he was able to make numerous changes to the painting, and on the other hand, it was precisely because of the painting on a dry surface that the canvas began to collapse very quickly.
5. WHAT IS THE MOMENT DESCRIBED AT LEONARDO'S LAST SUPPER?
The moment when Christ says that one of the disciples will betray him, the focus of the artist's attention is the reaction of the disciples to his words.
6. WHO SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF CHRIST: THE APOSTLE JOHN OR MARY MAGDALENE?
There is no unequivocal answer to this question, the rule strictly works here, whoever believes in what he sees. Moreover, the current state of the "Last Supper" is very far from what the contemporaries of da Vinci saw as a fresco. But, it is worth saying, the figure on the right hand of Christ did not surprise and did not outrage Leonardo's contemporaries. The fact is that on the frescoes on the theme of the Last Supper, the figure on the right hand of Christ has always been very feminine; Maurizio.
In the photo: The Last Supper in the Basilica of San Maurizio
Here, the figure in the same position again looks very feminine, in a word, it turns out one of two things: either all the artists of Milan were in a secret conspiracy and portrayed Mary Magdalene at the Last Supper, or it’s just an artistic tradition to portray John as a feminine young man. Decide for yourself.
7. WHAT IS THE LAST SUPPER INNOVATION?
First of all, in realism. The fact is that when creating his masterpiece, Leonardo decided to move away from the canons of biblical painting that existed at that time, he wanted to achieve such an effect that the monks who dined in the hall physically felt the presence of the Savior. That is why all household items are written off from those items that were in the everyday life of the monks of the Dominican monastery: the same tables at which Leonardo's contemporaries ate, the same utensils, the same utensils, yes, whatever, even the landscape outside the window - resembles the view from the windows refectory as it was in the fifteenth century.
In the photo: a mirror image of the "Last Supper"
But that is not all! The fact is that the rays of light on the fresco are a continuation of the real sunlight that fell into the windows of the refectory, in many places the painting passes the golden ratio, and due to the fact that Leonardo was able to correctly reproduce the depth of the perspective, the fresco after completion of the work was voluminous, that is, in fact, it was made with a 3D effect. Unfortunately, now you can see this effect only from one point of the hall, the coordinates of the desired point: 9 meters deep into the hall from the fresco and about 3 meters above the current floor level.
8. WITH WHOM LEONARDO WROTE CHRIST, JUDAS AND OTHER FRESCO CHARACTERS?
All the characters on the fresco were painted from Leonardo's contemporaries, they say that the artist constantly walked the streets of Milan and looked for suitable types, which even caused displeasure of the abbot of the monastery, who considered that the artist did not spend enough time at work. As a result, Leonardo informed the abbot that if he did not stop bothering him, then the portrait of Judas would be painted from him. The threat had an effect, and the rector of the maestro did not interfere anymore. For the image of Judas, the artist could not find a type for a very long time until he met a suitable person on the streets of Milan.
Judas on the fresco "The Last Supper"
When Leonardo brought an extra to his studio, it turned out that the same person a few years earlier posed for da Vinci for the image of Christ, just then he sang in the church choir and looked completely different. What a cruel irony! In the light of this information, the well-known historical anecdote that the man from whom Leonardo wrote Judas told everyone that he was depicted at the Last Supper in the image of Christ takes on a completely different meaning.
9. IS THERE A PORTRAIT OF LEONARDO HIMSELF ON THE FRESCO?
There is a theory that there is also a self-portrait of Leonardo on The Last Supper, supposedly the artist is present on the fresco in the image of the Apostle Thaddeus - this is the second figure on the right.
Image of the Apostle Thaddeus on the fresco and portraits of Leonardo da Vinci
The truth of this statement is still in question, but the analysis of Leonardo's portraits clearly demonstrates a strong external resemblance to the image on the fresco.
10. HOW IS THE LAST SUPPER AND THE NUMBER 3 RELATED?
Another mystery of the Last Supper is the constantly repeating number 3: there are three windows on the fresco, the apostles are arranged in groups of three, even the contours of the figure of Jesus resemble a triangle. And, I must say, this is not at all accidental, because the number 3 constantly appears in the New Testament. It's not just about the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit, the number 3 goes through the whole description of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
Three wise men brought gifts to the born Jesus in Nazareth, 33 years - the term of the earthly life of Christ, also according to the New Testament, the Son of God was to be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights (Matt. 12:40), that is, Jesus was in hell from the evening Friday to Sunday morning, in addition, the Apostle Peter denied Jesus Christ three times before the rooster crowed (by the way, this was also predicted at the Last Supper), there were three crosses on Golgotha, and Christ resurrected in the morning on the third day after the crucifixion.
PRACTICAL INFO:
Tickets for visiting the Last Supper must be ordered in advance, but rumors that they need to be booked six months in advance are greatly exaggerated. In fact, a month, or even three weeks before the intended visit, free tickets for the desired dates, as a rule, are available. You can order tickets on the website:, the cost depends on the season, in winter a visit to the Last Supper costs 8 euros, in summer - 12 euros (prices according to information for 2016). In addition, now at the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie you can often see resellers selling tickets with an extra charge of 2-3 euros, so if you are lucky, you can get there by accident. It is forbidden to take pictures of the fresco, the entrance is strictly at the time indicated on the ticket.
Did you like the material? Join us on facebook
Julia Malkova- Julia Malkova - founder of the website project. Former editor-in-chief of the elle.ru Internet project and editor-in-chief of the cosmo.ru website. I talk about traveling for my own pleasure and the pleasure of readers. If you are a representative of hotels, tourism office, but we are not familiar, you can contact me by email: [email protected]
The Last Supper. For many historians and art historians, Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper is the greatest work of world art. In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown focuses readers on some of the symbolic elements of the painting when Sophie Neveu, while at Lee Teabing's house, learns that Leonardo may have encoded some great secret in his masterpiece. The Last Supper is a fresco painted on the wall of the refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan. Even in the era of Leonardo himself, she was considered his best and most famous work. The fresco was created between 1495 and 1497, but already during the first twenty years of its existence, as is clear from the written evidence of those years, it began to deteriorate. Its dimensions are approximately 15 by 29 feet.
The fresco was painted with a thick layer of egg tempera on dry plaster. Beneath the main layer of paint is a rough compositional sketch, a study, inscribed in red in a manner that anticipates the usual use of cardboard. It's kind of a preparatory tool. It is known that the customer of the painting was the Duke of Milan Lodovico Sforza, at whose court Leonardo gained fame as a great painter, and not at all the monks of the monastery of Santa Maria della Grazie. The theme of the picture is the moment when Jesus Christ announces to his disciples that one of them will betray him. Pacioli writes about this in the third chapter of his book Divine Proportion. It was this moment - when Christ announces the betrayal - that Leonardo da Vinci captured. To achieve accuracy and lifelikeness, he studied the postures and facial expressions of many of his contemporaries, whom he later depicted in the picture. The identity of the apostles has repeatedly been the subject of controversy, however, judging by the inscriptions on the copy of the painting stored in Lugano, these are (from left to right): Bartholomew, James the Younger, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Thomas, James the Elder, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot. Many art historians believe that this composition should be taken as an iconographic interpretation of the Eucharist - communion, since Jesus Christ points with both hands at the table with wine and bread. Almost all scholars of Leonardo's work agree that the ideal place to look at the painting is from a height of about 13-15 feet above the floor and at a distance of 26-33 feet from it. There is an opinion - now disputed - that the composition and the system of its perspective are based on the musical canon of proportion. The unique character of The Last Supper is given by the fact that, unlike other paintings of this kind, it shows an amazing variety and richness of emotions of the characters caused by the words of Jesus that one of the disciples will betray him. No other painting based on the Last Supper can even come close to the unique composition and attention to detail in Leonardo's masterpiece. So what secrets could the great artist encrypt in his creation? In The Discovery of the Templars, Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett argue that several elements of The Last Supper's structure are indicative of the symbols encoded within it. First, they believe that the figure on the right hand of Jesus (for the viewer, she is on the left) is not John, but a certain woman.
She is wearing a robe, the color of which contrasts with the clothes of Christ, she is tilted in the opposite direction from Jesus, who is sitting in the center. The space between this female figure and Jesus is V-shaped, and the figures themselves form the letter M.
Secondly, in the picture, in their opinion, a certain hand is visible next to Peter, squeezing a knife. Prince and Picknett argue that this hand does not belong to any of the characters in the picture.
Thirdly, sitting directly to the left of Jesus (on the right - for the audience), Thomas, turning to Christ, raised his finger.
And finally, there is a hypothesis that the Apostle Thaddeus, sitting with his back to Christ, is actually a self-portrait of Leonardo himself.
Let's analyze each of the points in order. Upon closer examination of the picture, it turns out that the character to the right of Jesus (for the viewer - to the left) really differs in female or feminine features. Prince and Picknett assure readers that women's breasts are even visible under the folds of clothing. Of course, Leonardo sometimes liked to give feminine features to male figures and faces. For example, a close examination of the image of John the Baptist shows that he is endowed with almost the features of a hermaphrodite with pale, hairless skin.
But what of the fact that in the painting "The Last Supper" Jesus and John (the woman) deviated in opposite directions, forming a space between them in the form of the letter V, and the contours of their bodies form the letter M? Does it carry some symbolic meaning? Prince and Picknett argue that such an unusual placement of figures, one of which has distinct feminine features, contains a hint that this is not John, but Mary Magdalene, and the V sign is a symbol of the sacred feminine. The letter M, according to their hypothesis, means the name - Mary / Magdalene. You can agree or disagree with this assumption, but no one will deny its originality and courage. Let's focus on the disembodied hand. Whose hand is visible on the left, next to the figure of Peter? Why is she so threateningly clutching a dagger or knife? Another oddity is that Peter's left hand, with the edge of his palm, seems to cut the throat of the neighboring figure.
What did Leonardo mean by this? What does such a strange gesture of Peter mean? However, upon closer examination, it is clear that the hand with the knife still belongs to Peter, and does not exist on its own. Peter twisted his left arm, and therefore its position is clearly unusual and extremely awkward. As for the second hand, threateningly raised to the throat of John / Mary, there is an explanation for this: Peter de simply puts his hand on his / her shoulder. It is likely that this debate will continue for a very long time. As for Thomas, sitting to the left of Jesus (on the right - for the viewer), he really raised up the index finger of his left hand in a clearly threatening manner. This gesture of John the Baptist, as Prince and Picknett call it, is present in many paintings by Leonardo, as well as other painters of that era. It allegedly symbolizes the underground flow of knowledge and wisdom. The fact is that John the Baptist actually played a much more important role than the one assigned to him in Scripture. For those who wish to know more about this, I advise you to read the book The Discovery of the Templars. The apostle Thaddeus depicted in the picture seems to have some resemblance to Leonardo, if we compare his image with the famous self-portrait of the great artist. In many paintings by Leonardo da Vinci dedicated to Jesus or the Holy Family, the same detail is noticeable: at least one of the figures is turned back to the main character of the painting. For example, in the painting "The Adoration of the Magi". The recently completed restoration of The Last Supper has made it possible to learn a lot about this amazing painting. In it, and in many other canvases by Leonardo, some secret messages and forgotten symbols are actually hidden. However, their true meaning is still not completely clear to us, which gives rise to more and more guesses and assumptions. Be that as it may, much remains to be done in the future to unravel these mysteries. I would like us to be able to comprehend the ideas of the great master at least to the smallest extent.
The Last Supper fresco by Leonardo da Vinci was created in the refectory of the Dominican monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. It was written as if Jesus and the apostles ate at the same time as the churchmen. The light comes not from the painted windows, but from the left - as in the refectory itself. Tables and dishes exactly copy those that were in the church. Thus, Leonardo wanted to show that Jesus and Judas (good and evil) are much closer to people than it seems.
Plot
The Last Supper is the last meal of Jesus Christ with 12 disciples. That evening, Jesus established the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consisted in the consecration of bread and wine, preached about humility and love. The key event of the evening is the prediction of the betrayal of one of the students.
The closest associates of Jesus - those same apostles - are depicted in groups around Christ, sitting in the center. Bartholomew, Jacob Alfeev and Andrey; then Judas Iscariot, Peter and John; further Thomas, James Zebedee and Philip; and the last three are Matthew, Judas Thaddeus and Simon.
According to one version, it is not John who sits to the left of Christ, but Mary Magdalene. If we follow this hypothesis, then her position indicates a marriage with Christ. This is supported by the fact that Mary Magdalene washed the feet of Christ and wiped them with her hair. Only a legal wife could do this.
It is not known exactly what moment of the evening Da Vinci wanted to depict. Probably the reaction of the apostles to the words of Jesus about the coming betrayal of one of the disciples. Christ's gesture serves as an argument: according to the prediction, the traitor will stretch out his hand to eat at the same time as God's son, and Judas turns out to be the only "candidate".
The images of Jesus and Judas were given to Leonardo more difficult than others. The artist could not find suitable models in any way. As a result, he wrote off Christ from a singer in the church choir, and Judas - from a drunken vagabond, who, by the way, was also a singer in the past. There is even a version that Jesus and Judas were written off from the same person at different periods of his life.
Context
For the end of the 15th century, when the fresco was created, the reproduced depth of perspective was a revolution that changed the direction of development of Western painting. To be precise, the "Last Supper" is, rather, not a fresco, but a painting. The fact is that technically it is made on a dry wall, and not on wet plaster, as is the case with frescoes. This was done by Leonardo so that you can correct the images. The fresco technique does not give the author the right to make a mistake.
Da Vinci received an order from his regular client, Duke Lodovico Sforza. The wife of the latter, Beatrice d'Este, who patiently endured her husband's unbridled love of libertines, eventually died suddenly. "The Last Supper" was a kind of last will of the deceased.
Less than 20 years after the creation of the fresco, as due to humidity, Da Vinci's work began to crumble. After another 40 years, it was almost impossible to recognize the figures. Apparently, contemporaries were not particularly worried about the fate of the work. On the contrary, in every possible way, voluntarily or involuntarily, they only worsened his condition.
So, in the middle of the XVII century, when the churchmen needed a passage in the wall, they made it in such a way that Jesus lost his legs. Later, the opening was bricked up, but the legs could not be returned.
The French king Francis I was so impressed with the work that he seriously thought about transporting it to his home. And during World War II, the fresco miraculously survived - a shell that hit the church building destroyed everything except the wall with the work of Da Vinci.
"The Last Supper" has repeatedly tried to restore, however, not particularly successful. As a result, by the 1970s, it became obvious that it was time to act decisively, otherwise the masterpiece would be lost. For 21 years, a tremendous amount of work has been done. Today, visitors to the refectory have only 15 minutes to contemplate the masterpiece, and tickets, of course, must be bought ahead of time.
One of the geniuses of the Renaissance, a universal man, was born near Florence, a place where the cultural, political and economic life of the country was in full swing at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. Thanks to the families of patrons (such as the Sforza and the Medici), who generously paid for art, Leonardo could create freely.
Da Vinci was not a highly educated person. But his notebooks allow us to speak of him as a genius, whose range of interests was extremely wide. Painting, sculpture, architecture, engineering, anatomy, philosophy and so on and so forth. And the most important thing here is not the number of hobbies, but the degree of involvement in them. Da Vinci was an innovator. His progressive thought turned the views of his contemporaries upside down and set a new vector for the development of culture.
Truly, there is no secret in the world that someday would not become obvious, for manuscripts do not burn. And we continue to debunk one of the most shameless historical myths about the name defamed by the Christian Church Mary Magdalene. Recently, the coverage of this topic has become of fundamental importance for us, because Rigden Djappo himself speaks of her and her “great feat” with great respect, in which we will definitely come later, as evidenced by the book Sensei 4. Primordial Shambhala"materials describing the completely unknown history of this mysterious and beautiful woman. Very soon, in the section "Indigenous Knowledge" we will lay out the detailed content of this priceless, in our opinion, literary work.
In the meantime, following the article "One of the mysteries of Mary Magdalene, beloved disciple of Jesus Christ", we continue to search for the truth that is inconvenient for the official Church, trying to figure out what and why have been hidden from us - ordinary people for thousands of years, so what can you do, we have to to speak directly, the so-called "clerics". Having received the Keys-Knowledge, doors and eyes "open" before any person, he begins to see the surrounding reality from a radically different angle of view, and first of all, it becomes incomprehensible to him why these people call themselves "priests" and hide so many secrets? If a person knew the truth, a lot in this world could change, and we are convinced, for the better for people.
Today we turn to the monumental painting of Leonardo da Vinci " The Last Supper", depicting the scene of the last supper of Jesus Christ with the disciples. It was written in the years 1495-1498 in the Dominican monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. The reason for our conversion in it? Like many open-minded biblical students, we became very interested, why it is clearly seen that there is a woman next to Jesus , while for thousands of years the Church has been strongly convincing to believe in the version - about a certain apostle John, from whose pen came the fourth, one of the canonical gospels "from John the Theologian", - the "beloved disciple" of the Savior.
So let's look at the original first:
Location
Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy.
"The Last Supper" (official information, according to Wikipedia)
General information
The size of the image is approximately 460 × 880 cm, it is located in the refectory of the monastery, on the back wall. The theme is traditional for this kind of premises. The opposite wall of the refectory is covered with a fresco by another master; Leonardo also put his hand to it.
Technique
He painted The Last Supper on a dry wall, not on wet plaster, so the painting is not a fresco in the true sense of the word. A fresco cannot be changed while it is being painted, and Leonardo decided to cover the stone wall with a layer of resin, gab and mastic, and then paint on this layer with tempera. Due to the chosen method, the painting began to collapse within a few years after the end of the work.
Figures depicted
The apostles are depicted in groups of three, located around the figure of Christ sitting in the center. Groups of apostles, from left to right:
Bartholomew, Jacob Alfeev and Andrey;
Judas Iscariot (dressed in green and blue)
, Peter and John (?);
Thomas, James Zebedee and Philip;
Matthew, Judas Thaddeus and Simon.
In the 19th century, Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks with the names of the apostles were found; before that, only Judas, Peter, John, and Christ had been identified with certainty.
Painting analysis
It is believed that the work depicts the moment when Jesus utters the words that one of the apostles will betray him ("and when they were eating, he said: Truly I say to you that one of you will betray me"), and the reaction of each of them. As in other images of the last supper of that time, Leonardo places those seated at the table on one side of it so that the viewer can see their faces. Most of the previous writings on the subject excluded Judas, placing him alone on the opposite side of the table to that at which the other eleven apostles and Jesus sat, or depicting all the apostles except Judas with a halo. Judas clutches a small pouch in his hand, possibly representing the silver he received for betraying Jesus, or being an allusion to his role among the twelve apostles as treasurer. He was the only one who put his elbow on the table. The knife in Peter's hand, pointing away from Christ, may refer the viewer to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane during the detention of Christ. The gesture of Jesus can be interpreted in two ways. According to the Bible, Jesus predicts that his betrayer will stretch out his hand to eat at the same time as him. Judas reaches for the dish, not noticing that Jesus also stretches out his right hand to him. At the same time, Jesus points to bread and wine, which symbolize the sinless body and shed blood, respectively.
The figure of Jesus is located and illuminated in such a way that the viewer's attention is drawn primarily to him. The head of Jesus is at the vanishing point for all perspective lines.
The painting contains repeated references to the number three:
The apostles sit in groups of three;
behind Jesus are three windows;
the contours of the figure of Christ resemble a triangle.
The light illuminating the whole scene does not come from the windows painted on the back, but comes from the left, like the real light from the window on the left wall. In many places of the picture there is a golden ratio; for example, where Jesus and John, who is on his right, put their hands, the canvas is divided in this ratio.
"The Last Supper. Mary Magdalene sits next to Christ!" (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince. "Leonardo da Vinci and the Brotherhood of Zion")
(a book that deserves attention due to its sober analytical view)
There is one of the most famous - immortal - works of art in the world. The Last Supper fresco by Leonardo da Vinci is the only surviving painting in the refectory of the monastery of Santa Maria del Grazia. It is made on a wall that was left standing after the entire building was reduced to rubble by Allied bombing during World War II. Although other remarkable artists, Nicolas Poussin and even such an idiosyncratic author as Salvador Dali, presented their versions of this biblical scene to the world, it is the creation of Leonardo that, for some reason, strikes the imagination more than any other canvas. Variants on this theme can be seen everywhere, and they cover the whole spectrum of attitudes to the theme: from worship to ridicule.
Sometimes the image looks so familiar that it is hardly considered in detail, although it is open to the eyes of any viewer and requires closer examination: its true deep meaning remains a closed book, and the viewer glides only on its cover.
It was this work of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - the suffering genius of Renaissance Italy - that showed us the path that led to discoveries so exciting in their consequences that at first they seemed incredible. It is impossible to understand why generations of scholars did not notice what was available to our astonished eye, why such explosive information patiently waited all this time for writers like us, remained outside the mainstream of historical or religious research and was not discovered.
To be consistent, we must return to The Last Supper and look at it with a fresh, unbiased eye. Now is not the time to consider it in the light of familiar notions of history and art. Now the moment has come when the look of a person who is completely unfamiliar with this so famous scene will be more appropriate - let the veil of prejudice fall from our eyes, let us look at the picture in a new way.
The central figure is, of course, Jesus, whom Leonardo, in his notes on this work, calls the Savior. He looks thoughtfully down and slightly to his left, hands stretched out on the table in front of him, as if offering the viewer the gifts of the Last Supper. Since it was then, according to the New Testament, that Jesus introduced the sacrament of Communion by offering the disciples bread and wine as his "flesh" and "blood", the viewer has the right to expect that there should be a cup or goblet of wine on the table in front of him in order for the gesture to look justified. . Ultimately, for Christians, this supper immediately precedes the Passion of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he fervently prays "may this cup pass from me ..." - another association with the image of wine - blood - and holy blood was shed before the Crucifixion for the atonement of sins of all mankind. Nevertheless, there is no wine before Jesus (and even a symbolic amount of it on the whole table). Can these outstretched hands mean what in the lexicon of artists is called an empty gesture?
Given the absence of wine, it is perhaps no coincidence that, of all the loaves on the table, very few are "broken". Since Jesus himself associated with his flesh the bread to be broken at the supreme sacrament, is there not a subtle allusion to the true nature of Jesus' suffering?
However, all this is just the tip of the iceberg of heresy reflected in this picture. According to the Gospel, the Apostle John the Theologian was physically so close to Jesus during this Supper that he clung "to his chest." However, in Leonardo, this young man does not occupy at all the same position as the “stage instructions” of the Gospel require, but, on the contrary, exaggeratedly deviated from the Savior, bowing his head to the right side. An unbiased viewer can be forgiven if he notices only these curious features in relation to a single image - the image of the Apostle John. But, although the artist, due to his own predilections, of course, was inclined towards the ideal of male beauty of a somewhat feminine type, there can be no other interpretation: at the moment we are looking at a woman. Everything about it is strikingly feminine. However old and faded the image may be due to the age of the fresco, one cannot help but notice the tiny, graceful hands, delicate features, clearly female breasts and a golden necklace. This is a woman, it is a woman, which is marked by a dress that makes her stand out. The clothes on her are a mirror image of the clothes of the Savior: if he is wearing a blue chiton and a red cloak, then she is wearing a red tunic and a blue cloak. None of those sitting at the table are wearing robes that are a mirror image of the clothes of Jesus. And there are no other women at the table.
Central to the composition is a huge, widened letter "M", which is formed by the figures of Jesus and this woman, taken together. They seem to be literally connected at the hips, but suffer due to the fact that they diverge or even grow from one point in different directions. As far as we know, none of the academicians has ever referred to this image other than "St. John", they did not notice the compositional form in the form of the letter "M". Leonardo, as we have established in our research, was a brilliant psychologist who laughed when he presented highly unorthodox images to his patrons who commissioned him a traditional biblical image, knowing that people would calmly and calmly look at the most monstrous heresy, since they usually see only what they want to see. If you are called to write a Christian scene and present to the public something that at first glance seems similar and meets their wishes, people will never look for ambiguous symbolism.
At the same time, Leonardo had to hope that perhaps there were others who shared his unusual interpretation of the New Testament, who recognized the secret symbolism in the picture. Or someone, sometime, some objective observer, will one day understand the image of a mysterious woman associated with the letter "M", and ask questions that obviously follow from this. Who was this "M" and why is she so important? Why did Leonardo risk his reputation - even his life in the days when heretics were burning at the stake everywhere - to include it in the seminal Christian scene? Whoever she is, her fate cannot but be alarming as an outstretched hand cuts into her gracefully arched neck. The threat contained in this gesture cannot be doubted.
Raised right in front of the Savior's face, the index finger of the other hand, with obvious passion, threatens him himself. But both Jesus and "M" look like people who do not notice the threat, each of them is completely immersed in the world of his thoughts, each in his own way is serene and calm. But all together it looks as if the secret symbols were used not only to warn Jesus and the woman sitting next to him (?), but also to inform (or perhaps remind) the observer of some information that would be dangerous to make public in any other way. Did Leonardo not use his creation to promulgate some special beliefs, which would be simply madness to proclaim in the usual way? And could these beliefs be a message addressed to a much wider circle, and not just to his inner circle? Maybe they were intended for us, for the people of our time?
The young apostle John or Mary Magdalene?
Let's get back to this amazing creation. In the fresco on the right, from the point of view of the observer, a tall, bearded man doubled over, telling something to a student sitting at the edge of the table. At the same time, he almost completely turned his back on the Savior. The model for the image of this student - St. Thaddeus or St. Jude - was Leonardo himself. Note that the image of the Renaissance artists, as a rule, is either accidental or made when the artist was a beautiful model. In this case, we are dealing with an example of the use of an image by an adherent of double entendre (double meaning). (He was preoccupied with finding the right model for each of the apostles, as can be seen from his rebellious offer to the most irate prior of St. Mary's to serve as a model for Judas.) So why did Leonardo portray himself so obviously turning his back on Jesus?
Furthermore. An unusual hand aims a dagger at the stomach of a student sitting just one person from "M". This hand cannot belong to anyone sitting at the table, because to hold the dagger in this position, such a bend is physically impossible for people who are next to the image of the hand. However, it is not the very fact of the existence of a hand that does not belong to the body that is really striking, but the absence in the works on Leonardo that we have read mentions this: although this hand is mentioned in a couple of works, the authors do not find anything unusual in it. As in the case of the apostle John, who looks like a woman, nothing could be more obvious - and more strange - if only to pay attention to this circumstance. But this irregularity most often escapes the attention of the observer, simply because this fact is extraordinary and outrageous.
We often hear that Leonardo was a devout Christian whose religious paintings reflect the depth of his faith. As we can see, in at least one of the paintings there are images that are very dubious from the point of view of an orthodox Christian. By our further research, as we shall show, nothing can be so far from the truth as the idea that Leonardo was a true believer - that is, a believer according to the canons of an accepted or at least acceptable form of Christianity. Already by the curious anomalous features of one of his creations, we can see that he was trying to tell us about another layer of meanings in a familiar biblical scene, about another world of faith, hidden in the generally accepted images of wall paintings in Milan.
Whatever the meaning of these heretical irregularities - and the significance of this fact cannot be exaggerated - they were absolutely incompatible with the orthodox dogmas of Christianity. In itself, this is hardly news to many modern materialists/rationalists, since for them Leonardo was the first real scientist, a man who had no time for any superstition, a man who was the antithesis of all mysticism and occultism. But they could not understand what appeared before their eyes. Depicting the Last Supper without wine is tantamount to depicting the scene of the coronation without a crown: it turns out either nonsense, or the picture is filled with other content, and to such an extent that it represents the author as an absolute heretic - a person who has faith, but faith that contradicts the dogmas of Christianity. Maybe not just different, but in a state of struggle with the dogmas of Christianity. And in Leonardo's other works, we have found his own particular heretical tastes, expressed in carefully crafted appropriate scenes, which he would hardly have written in this way, being just an atheist earning his living. There are too many of these deviations and symbols to be interpreted as a mockery of a skeptic who is forced to work on order, and they cannot be called just antics, like, for example, the image of St. Peter with a red nose. What we see in The Last Supper and other works is the secret code of Leonardo da Vinci, which we believe has a striking connection with the modern world.
One can argue what Leonardo believed or did not believe in, but his actions were not just a whim of a man, undoubtedly extraordinary, whose whole life was full of paradoxes. He was closed, but at the same time the soul and life of society; he despised fortune-tellers, but his papers show large sums paid to astrologers; he was considered a vegetarian and had a tender love for animals, but his tenderness seldom extended to mankind; he zealously dissected corpses and watched the executions with the eyes of an anatomist, he was a deep thinker and a master of riddles, tricks and hoaxes.
With such a contradictory inner world, it is likely that Leonardo's religious and philosophical views were unusual, even strange. For this reason alone, it is tempting to dismiss his heretical beliefs as irrelevant to our modern times. It is generally accepted that Leonardo was an extremely gifted man, but the modern tendency to evaluate everything in terms of "epoch" leads to a significant underestimation of his achievements. After all, in those days when he was at the height of his creative powers, even printing was a novelty. What can one lone inventor living in such primitive times offer to a world that is bathed in an ocean of information via a global network, to a world that, in a matter of seconds, exchanges information via telephone and fax with continents not yet discovered in his time?
There are two answers to this question. First: Leonardo was not, to use the paradox, an ordinary genius. Most educated people know that he designed a flying machine and a primitive tank, but at the same time, some of his inventions were so out of character for the time in which he lived that people with an eccentric turn of mind can imagine that he was given a vision of the future. His bicycle design, for example, became known only in the late sixties of the twentieth century. In contrast to the painful trial-and-error evolution that the Victorian bicycle underwent, Leonardo da Vinci's road-eater already has two wheels and a chain drive in the first edition. But even more striking is not the design of the mechanism, but the question of the reasons that prompted to reinvent the wheel. Man has always wanted to fly like a bird, but the dream of balancing on two wheels and pushing the pedals, taking into account the deplorable state of the roads, already smacks of mysticism. (Recall, by the way, that, unlike the dream of flying, it does not appear in any of the classic stories.) Among many other statements about the future, Leonardo also predicted the appearance of the telephone.
Even if Leonardo were even more of a genius than the historical books say, the question still remains unanswered: what possible knowledge could he have if what he proposed found meaning or became widespread only five centuries after his time. One could, of course, argue that the teaching of a first-century preacher would seem to have even less relevance to our time, but the fact remains that some ideas are universal and eternal, a truth found or formulated does not cease to be truth after the lapse of centuries. ..
(to be continued)
"The Da Vinci Code" (scandalous novel by Dan Brown)
Particularly heated debate erupted in the world after the film adaptation of Dan Brown's scandalous novel " The Da Vinci Code where, among other things, he claims that Mary Magdalene was not only a beloved disciple of Jesus, but also a spouse, that is, a wife . The book has been translated into 44 languages and has a total circulation of more than 81 million copies. The Da Vinci Code tops the New York Times bestseller list, and is considered by many to be the best book of the decade. The novel, written in the genre of an intellectual detective thriller, was able to arouse wide interest in the legend of the Holy Grail and the place of Mary Magdalene in the history of Christianity.
However, the Christian world reacted very sharply to the release of the book and film, Dan Brown's version was crushed by a thousand critical responses and remarks. One of the zealous ministers of religion put it most eloquently, calling even for a boycott of the film: "shrillly anti-Christian, full of slander, crimes and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospel and a hostile church." However, discarding religious narrow-mindedness, one thing can be said for sure, none of the critics lived then, and cannot know the real history. It may be known by the one whose name is inscribed in the title of our site, and we will return to his words.
SKETCH OF "THE LAST SUPPER"
Well, now let's look at the workpiece by Leonardo Da Vinci, the surviving sketch for The Last Supper. The second figure on the left, in the top row, is clearly visible feminine outlines, smoother and lighter forms. Who is this if not a woman?
SUMMARY
Everyone sees what he wants to see, this is one of the mysterious laws of human consciousness. And if a person's consciousness believes that white is black, it will confidently prove its case. We were not present at the writing of the famous monumental painting of the brilliant artist, just as we were not present at the epochal events of the life of Jesus Christ, and therefore it would be fairer to end this article with the statement that we cannot know for sure whether this is John or Mary, however subjectively, in the picture Leonardo Da Vinci is a woman, and therefore none other than the beloved disciple of Jesus - Mary Magdalene. The opinion of the Church that the Apostle John the Theologian is in the picture is equally subjective. 50/50 - nothing more!!!
Prepared by Dato Gomarteli (Ukraine-Georgia)
PS: another reproduction, a photo of the Last Supper mosaic from St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, and again we see a woman:
GOSPEL STORIES IN THE MIRROR OF ART
You are forever new, century after century,
Year after year, moment after moment,
You get up - an altar before a man,
O Bible! oh book of books!
V.Ya.Bryusov
THE LAST SUPPER
The Last Supper is the traditional name for the last meal of Christ with the disciples. In connection with the threat from the Sanhedrin (the Jewish supreme college, which included high priests, elders and scribes), the meeting took place in secret. During the meal, an important event took place - the establishment of the New Testament and the sacrament of the Eucharist (Communion), which since then has been celebrated by the Church in memory of the Savior. Information about the Last Supper is contained in all the Gospels and generally coincides.
The symbolism of the Last Supper and the Eucharist is associated with the traditions of the Old Testament and ancient pagan ritual customs (sacrifices) that existed among various peoples: fraternal meals, symbolizing the unity of people both with each other and with the Divine. In the Old Testament, sacrificial blood, with which the members of the community sprinkled themselves, symbolized "consanguinity", that is, made the participants in the ceremony half-brothers, whose life belongs only to God.
In the New Testament, the Lord himself becomes a voluntary sacrifice, giving his blood and flesh to people, thereby uniting them. The Church emphasizes that in order to strengthen faith, it is necessary to repeat the rite of the Eucharist. Just as eating strengthens the physical strength of a person and introduces him to nature, the Eucharist gives spiritual strength through the body and soul of Christ. “And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, gave it to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them: and they all drank from it. And he said to them: This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.” (Matthew 26:23); (Mark 14:22-24).
The establishment of the Eucharist is the liturgical component of the Last Supper. However, there are two more storylines in it - the washing of the feet (a lesson of boundless love and humility taught by Christ) and the betrayal of the Teacher (Christ) by the disciple (Judas).
Three main themes - the sacrament of Communion, an example of humility and love, the sin of betrayal and deceived trust - form the main types of depiction of the Last Supper in art.
The first images of the plot of the Last Supper date back to the 6th-7th centuries and, in fact, are illustrations of the gospel texts.
Altar pediment from the monastery of Suriguerola. 12th century
Italo-Byzantine master. Painting.
Giotto. The Last Supper.
The usual attributes of a meal are wine (the blood of Christ), bread (the body of Christ); in early images there is a fish (an ancient symbol of Christ).
Refectory table. Fragment.
Participants in the meal can recline or sit at a rounded or rectangular table.
Unknown artist of the Lorenzetti school. 14th century
Fra Beato Angelico. 15th century
Dirk Boats. The central part of the triptych. 15th century
The number of participants in the meal can be different, which sometimes causes bewilderment of the audience, knowing that there were twelve disciples of Christ. The explanation for the discrepancies lies, firstly, in the vagueness of the question of the presence of Judas at the sacrament of the Eucharist. Some interpreters believe that he took part in the evening from beginning to end. Others claim that Judas was present at the washing of the feet, and after the words of Jesus addressed to him "What are you doing, do it quickly" retired and did not receive the sacraments of Communion from the hands of Christ. That is why some artists depicted, not counting Christ, eleven, and others twelve characters of the Last Supper.
| Lucas Cranach.16th century |
Secondly, given that the supper is a feast, the presence of additional characters in some images should not be surprising: servants, women (Mary, Mary Magdalene). In the late historical iconography of the plot, portraits of contemporaries of artists, children, and animals are “received”.
Throughout the Middle Ages, painters did not particularly seek to differentiate the characters, with the exception of Christ and Judas. The attribute of the latter is an unchanging purse, which associates it with thirty pieces of silver and the betrayal of the Teacher. Unlike other students, Judas was portrayed without a halo, either with a black halo or with a figurine of a devil behind his shoulders - all this symbolized the idea of betrayal. In the works of Castagno and Rosselli below, attention is drawn to the compositional technique of highlighting Judas (promoting it to the fore) and thereby separating him from all other participants in the scene.
Andrea del Castagno. 15th century Fragment
Cosimo Rosselli. 15th century
Since the Renaissance, an interest in individuality has arisen, and artists strive to create psychologically reliable human characters within the framework of a canonical plot. They depart from strict canonicity in the interpretation of the plot, their innovation implements humanistic ideas, leveling the religious semantics of painting. Naturally, the liturgical component of the plot fades into the background, giving way to a historically truthful depiction of the climactic episode of the Last Supper, when Christ said: "One of you will betray me." The shocked apostles react in different ways (postures, gestures, facial expressions) to the words of the teacher.
In the art of Quattrocento, the theme of the Last Supper arose quite often; perhaps all famous artists turned to it. The skill of the Renaissance painters was manifested in the variety and expressiveness of the created images, in the accurate and thorough, to the smallest detail, transmission of natural phenomena, in the skillful use of the discoveries of linear perspective. According to the fair remark of I.E. Danilova, “in an effort to depict the world, not intelligible, but visible (the theorists of the Renaissance insisted that the artist should depict only what the eye sees), that is, something material, concrete at the level of the subject of the image - the artists strove achieve visual illusion.
Andrea del Sarto. 16th century
Artfully built, harmoniously balanced in composition, a Renaissance painting is presented to the viewer for careful examination and evaluation: it is built correctly or incorrectly, it is similar or unlike drawn, etc.
Works with a gospel plot became not just illustrations of canonical texts, but every time they demonstrated the author's reading, an individual look (of the artist or customer).
Numerous variations on the theme of the Last Supper differ not only in technical techniques, artistic language, but, most importantly, in semantic accents.
The pinnacle of the High Renaissance and at the same time an important stage in the evolution of European painting was the "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci. This work can still be regarded as a classic example, primarily because Leonardo himself (scientist-researcher, humanist, writer) is a bright, extraordinary personality, embodies his era in its entirety, its ideal impulses and utopian illusions. The Last Supper by Leonardo is a brilliant embodiment of the spirit of the times, its philosophical understanding.
Leonardo da Vinci. 15th century
At first glance, the work is in line with tradition: Christ and the twelve apostles are sitting at a frontally extended table. Carefully examining the presented scene, we begin to notice how mathematically accurate the composition is, the figures are masterfully arranged, every gesture, turn of the head is verified. The compositional center (the vanishing point of perspective lines) and the semantic center is the calm figure of Jesus with outstretched arms. The viewer's gaze, sliding over the hands, mentally draws a triangle, the apex of which is the head of Christ, clearly standing out against the background of the illuminated window. Behind him - heavenly blueness, a happy expanse of earthly or unknown eternal life.
The figures are geometrically lined up on either side of the center: two groups of six characters on each side, but further divided into subgroups of three. The students who jumped up from their seats gesticulate violently, expressing a variety of feelings: bewilderment, bitterness, fear, indignation, depression, etc. The figures are dynamic and restrained at the same time, there is no fuss, but a feeling of movement is created. Only a great master could do that.
The schematic representation clearly reveals the wave-like movement, emphasizing the expression of the dramatic situation. The light-shadow modeling of the figures is carefully thought out and subordinated to the plan. Leonardo places Judas among the other students, but in such a way that the light does not fall on his face, and it turns out to be dark. I recall Leonardo's reflections that the artist has two goals: a person and manifestations of his soul. The first is simple, the second is difficult and mysterious. She seems to be saying: “Listen - and you will hear me!”
The depth and ambiguity of the images created by the artist, the use of new techniques and technologies made his "Last Supper" semantically inexhaustible, mysterious in its self-immersion and self-sufficiency, giving rise to numerous religious and symbolic interpretations and secular interpretations. For all their differences, they contain a common component - the right to choose a person and the moral meaning of this choice. Rudolf Steiner called Leonardo's Last Supper "the key to the meaning of earthly existence."
The works of the late Renaissance lose their rigor and harmony. Already in Veronese, purely pictorial, decorative tasks come to the fore.
Paolo Veronese. 16th century
The Last Supper ceases to be a mystery and full of sacred and moral meanings. In the paintings of Veronese, we see Venetian life in all its carnival beauty and banquet flesh: many characters, often secondary, that interfere with the traditional reading of the content. Sensual pleasures and impressions are valuable in themselves and create a spectacular effect of pomp and decorativeness.
Tintoretto demonstrates a different philosophical understanding and artistic solution.
Jacopo Tintoretto. 16th century
The last version of the Supper, written in the year of the artist's death, demonstrates Tintoretto's passion for mannerism at the level of form. This is manifested in the ornamentality of the composition, sharp contrasts of light and shadow, helical, swirling movement.
The feeling of the instability of the world, the restlessness of man within the earthly limits makes Tintoretto, like many baroque authors, look for meanings in the embodiment of higher, mystical moments, such as the sacrament of Communion.
Modern times continued to develop the plot of the Last Supper, increasingly focusing on the individual author's reading of the gospel story.
As an example, we can cite the classic version of Poussin and the baroque-rocaille version of Tiepolo.
Nicholas Poussin. 17th century
Giovanni Tiepolo 18th century
Of particular interest is the painting of Russian artists of the 19th century, who focused on the social and moral problems of their time. They developed even the gospel stories not so much in a religious, but in a philosophical and ethical way, raising the theme of the responsibility of the individual, the inevitable sacrifice in the name of the future.
The most striking example is The Last Supper by N. Ge. The picture was perceived by the public so topically that Saltykov-Shchedrin called what was happening a secret meeting, which revealed serious political differences.
Nicholas Ge. The Last Supper. 19th century
The fact that Ge painted the head of Christ from Herzen, who was banned in Russia and lived in exile, gave particular relevance to the work in the eyes of the audience. The drama of the teacher's break with the student was interpreted by some experts in the light of ideological differences and Herzen's break with his friend and like-minded Granovsky.
Turning to the gospel plot, Ge tries to understand the present through the past, but the present, overturned on the historical plot, brings new colors and meanings to it.
The author's title of the painting "The Departure of Judas" clearly emphasizes its meaning. Judas, in the understanding of Ge, is not a banal traitor, but a significant person worthy of interest. His figure determines the compositional asymmetry of the picture, sharp light contrasts draw the viewer's attention to it, enhancing the dramatic intensity of the scene.
Ge's work was greeted ambiguously by contemporaries: from praise and admiration to criticism and accusations of the artist of falsehood and bias. I. Goncharov summed up a kind of line in the disputes: “... But no picture has ever depicted and will depict the entire Last Supper, that is, the whole evening and the entire meal of the Savior, from beginning to end ...”
It becomes obvious that by creating a picture based on a biblical story, but not striving for a dogmatic interpretation of the text, the artist finds himself in the sphere of its humanitarian interpretation, which allows for subjectivism, voluntarism and other "liberties".
The art of the 20th century marked a watershed between traditional, academic religious painting and the new one, which lives according to different laws, even if it refers to "eternal" biblical subjects.
Throughout the century, art has long and painfully struggled with history, the museum's attitude to the past, shakes established traditions and ruts. To do this, sometimes enters into a direct or indirect dialogue with the masters of the classical era.
The playful technique of artistic quotation, the paraphrase of recognizable paintings, the interpretation and reinterpretation of well-known subjects, the free manipulation of any material are widely used in painting.
A good example is the famous painting by Salvador Dali.
Salvador Dali. The Last Supper. XX century
Dali's large epic canvas conveys not only the artist's mystical and religious moods, but a certain cosmic nature of his worldview.
Coloristically restrained, in terms of color built on the contrast of warm golden-ocher and cold bluish-gray tones, the picture radiates a glow and fascinates the viewer.
The composition clearly refers to the work of Leonardo, but it is more rationalistic and geometrically verified. One gets the impression of the rigidity and coldness of the perfect form, in which Dali believed so much and in the sacred power of which he did not doubt.
The artist’s free interpretation of the gospel text: the absence of everyday realities and religious attributes, the immersion of Christ waist-deep in water (a symbol of baptism), the presence of a ghostly figure in the upper part of the picture gives rise to semantic ambiguity and multiple interpretations of Dali’s work.
Artists are attracted by the most diverse layers of the plot and semantic context of the biblical Supper. They continue to refer to "eternal history". Some embody it in accordance with religious canons and classical approaches. Others, passing through the prism of subjective-personal perception, consider the plot of the Supper as a vital problem of modern society, as a warning, as a drama of betrayal and sacrificial love. And others perceive the plot as an abstract starting point for their own self-expression. Watch, judge and choose - the viewer.
Natalya Tsarkova. 20th century
Maria Mickiewicz. XX century
Stanley Spencer. The Last Supper XX century
Gustav van Feustin. 20th century
Alexander Alekseev-Svinkin. 20th century
Pharaoh Mirzoyan. 20th century
Zurab Tsereteli. 20th century
Ivan Akimov. 20th century