The Last Supper: The intention of a genius?

Helen Marie Kelly 100219654 Illustration (Mdes) Extended Essay: 6VC507 Word Count: Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy

Table of Contents: Page 4 - 5 Introduction

Page 6 - 11 The fresco: Materials, application and restoration

Page 12 - 14 Androgyny in Renaissance art: How the period may have affected da Vincis work Page 15 17 The da Vinci Code: Creating new connotations to da Vincis work or unveiling an underlying intention?

Page 18 - 20 Leonardo da Vinci himself: Were his intentions Christian?

Page 21 - 22 Conclusion Page 23 24 Bibliography

List of illustrations: Page 4 The Last Supper, Leonardo Da Vinci (1495 1498) S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan Page 8 Domenico Ghirlandio The Last Supper (1480) Jacopo Bassano The last supper, oil on canvas, 168 x 270 cm, (1546) Page 9 Juan de Juanes The Last supper (1560) Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper (1495 1498) S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan: Edited by John Chapman (2oo6) for website http://www.jaydax.co.uk/lastsupper/lastsupper.htm#John_or_Mary Page 10 Giampietrino The Last Supper (1520) Page 12 Leonardo da Vinci John the Baptist (1513 16.) Paris, Louvre Jean Delville, The School of Plato (1898) Musee d'Orsay, Paris.

Introduction

Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper (1495 1498) S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan

When the beholder questions the intentions behind "the last supper" by Leonardo da Vinci; there are two main questions that must be posed. What was da Vincis intention? And does the belief of the viewer cloud the judgement one might make about this intention? This essay explores how many factors may affect how modern day people may view the intentions of Leonardo da Vincis The Last Supper. This essay provides a critical analysis into a number of varying factors that may have affected how modern day people perceive da Vincis intention behind his most famous fresco and how these perceptions might implore modern day artists to consider how their work will be viewed.

Society and time can have an affect on how imagery is perceived, along with how work is used by others to convey their own messages. An artist must always be aware of visual communication and how outside factors can potentially suggest a different meaning to that of the original. Despite extensive clarity of, even the most professional of work, imagery in situ that has stood the test of time can be perceived as obscure. This essay will weigh up the potential reliability of aspects that have affected how da Vincis fresco is viewed by a modern day western audience including: physical entities that have affected the original artwork; how

perceptions of subjects such as gender have changed over time; how the opinions and conspiracies created by others have affected how todays audience perceive The Last Supper and potential reasons that may have affected what da Vinci wished to convey through his work.

The Fresco: Materials, application and restoration This area of the essay aims to explore when, where, how and why The Last Supper was created and how certain aspects of these factors could possibly affect how people in modern day may view Leonardo Da Vincis intention behind the painting. Lahr informs, Da Vinci began the last supper in 1495 and completed it in 1498. It was commissioned as a mural for the walls of the refectory of the Monastery S. Maria delle Grazie in Milan. (Lahr, 2006: 235 - 6)

Chapman noted that, The painting was made using experimental pigments directly on the dry plaster wall and unlike frescos, where the pigments are mixed with the wet plaster, it has not stood the test of time well. Even before it was finished there were problems with the paint flaking from the wall and Leonardo had to repair it. (Chapman, 2006)

The impact of the use of experimental materials by da Vinci on the fresco The Last Supper; have created huge issues as to how todays audience may perceive its meanings and the intention behind it: due to the damage and restoration process, which have had an affect on how the original image would have looked. Unlike the traditional fresco technique of painting on wet plaster (Lahr, 2006: 235 - 6) As Lahr states this painting was not created conventionally for the time: Leonardo chose to use a mixture of egg yolk and vinegar (tempera) and oil paint which he applied to a dry plaster wall. Fresco painting required a speed that Leonardo was not characteristically suited for (Lahr, 2006:235 6). It is apparent that the fresco is merely a vague skeleton of the glory that was the original. Chapman argues that to date the image that is beheld is Very little (Chapman, 2006) like the original intention for da Vincis masterpiece: Over the years it has crumbled, been vandalized bombed and restored. Today we are probably looking at very little of the original. (Chapman, 2006) When considering the visual impact of the factors that have affected the fresco it is abhorrently clear that this is not the original and thus does not fully carry the intentions of the original artist; although restored, it was done so by people other than da

Vinci, which in itself is an issue due to the potential of those who are responsible for the restoration, and their skills which was likely not to be any where near that of da Vinci. Anything that may have been derived from this work has been hugely compromised by such events and it may be that such theories have been based on work that was done by others. When considering the use of experimental material, out of the norm for modern day contemporary art, those creating it should take heed as to how creating finalised work using unorthodox methods can affect the longevity of the imagery and what is left behind can potentially convey a very different message. If such work is open to be tampered with or restored by others due to surrounding factors on the situ of an image, this can also widely affect an artists intention.

Chapman then goes on to argue further that The Last Supper does not depict Good Friday, but is set the day before due to a number of important visual details: The Passover feast, associated with Good Friday, began at sunset, and as the above image suggests, by closely paying attention to areas such as looking out of the windows in the background, this is too early in the day, for Passover festivities to have begun. The fresco also depicts the characters as seated, whereas it was Passover tradition to eat reclining (Chapman, 2006). Would Da Vinci make such mistakes especially when considering that the Vatican commissioned this painting in a church? Chapman produces quotes from the Bible, which support his statement about the time at which the painting is set:

You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified." 26.3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered 26.4 and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 26.5 But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people. (Matthew 26.2) Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to... (John 13.1)

The setting of the painting draws into question, more so the intention behind it, as many in modern day perceive this image to be Passover, this detail in itself may have implications as

to Da Vincis intention. Did Da Vinci intend to educate people as to when the last supper took place? Or was this common knowledge of the time that Jesus was not crucified during the festival? Although the Vatican commissioned the fresco, the use of experimental materials on Da Vincis part suggests a certain freedom at the discursion of the artist; however did this freedom stretch so far to allow Da Vinci to depict Passover in a way that would draw into question the tradition of such a prestigious Hebrew event? If of course the fresco was intended to depict the last supper at all, and not just a meal at which Jesus partook with his disciples. Could this imagery over time possibly be mistaken as the Last Supper?

Domenico Ghirlandio The Last Supper (1480) (before Da Vinci)

Jacopo Bassano The last supper, oil on canvas, 168 x 270 cm, (1546) (after Da Vincis The Last Supper)

Juan de Juanes The Last supper (1560) (Later Still) The painting of the last supper has been re-created by artists since the early 1300s and it is perceived that one of the largest traditions of this painting are certain characters holding objects: Peter holding a knife and Judas holding a small bag containing 30 pieces of silver, for which he sold the whereabouts of Jesus to the Romans. This artistic tradition has been upheld in the above renditions of The Last Supper painting, as in Da Vincis version; however this is not the case for all versions, for example in Juan de Juanes version, Judas (front right) conceals a small sack, but no character clutches a knife and the knives present in the painting are laid on the table; instead Jesus holds a small circular object, presumably bread. In Duccios Last Supper (1308 1311), only one of the two objects are portrayed again, Peter holds a knife, but no bag is held by any of the disciples. This trend could have possibly been created over time due to the discursion of certain artists, which were then followed, as must have entities this could possibly be down to artistic licence. Da Vincis version of The Last Supper includes both Peter holding a knife and Judas clutching a small sack, which suggests that his fresco was in fact depicting The Last Supper.

Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper (1495 1498) S. Maria delle Grazie, Milan: Edited by John Chapman (2oo6)

Looking across the picture from left to right the disciples are shown in four groups of three: Bartholomew, James Minor and Andrew form a group of three. All are horrified, Andrew to the point of holding his hands up in a "let's calm down " gesture. Judas, Peter and John form the next group of three. Judas has his face in shadow and is clutching a small bag, presumably money. He was quite often portrayed with this in last supper paintings. He is also reaching for bread at the same time as Jesus is. Peter, in the fashion of the time, is shown clutching a knife and, with his hand on John's shoulder, is asking a feminine-looking John "Who does he say it is?" John leans toward him to hear what he says creating a V shape between himself and Jesus which has been interpreted by some as an indication of a marriage between 'Mary' and Jesus. Christ is very much the calm person alone in the midst of the debate. Thomas, James the Elder and Philip are next. 'Doubting' Thomas is pointing upward, maybe asking for one shred of evidence that this is so. His other hand is on the table between James and Philip as though seeking something solid. James the Elder looks stunned and seems to be watching Jesus' left hand. Philip seems to be asking 'Is it me?' Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon comprise the last group of three figures. Matthew and Thaddeus seem to be asking Simon about Jesus' statement. (Chapman, 2006) As Chapman describes, the disciples in da Vincis version of The Last Supper are all interacting with one another in such a way that is believable and realistic. da Vinci has created, along with believable character interaction, a focal point for the main character in his painting, Christ Who is the only calm (Chapman, 2006) character. Chapman states that the characters are subtly split into groups of three, which adds to the believable scenario of sitting in a large group, that people tend to interact with those closest to them.

Although Da Vinci followed certain trends from renditions of the Last Supper that had come before, there are distinct differences. As Klip suggests, it was a difficult issue for all painters, who created versions of The Last Supper; to group the disciples together in a natural and believable scenario, which would best portray the atmosphere and relationships between the Disciples. An example of this is Ghirlandaios version, in which Judas sits alone on the opposite side of the table (Klip, 2005 - 2012). He goes on to state Leonardo da Vinci affected a breakthrough with his Last Supper (approx. 1495-98). Not only is Judas fully included in the group, but the figures are engaged in lively interaction. (Klip, 2005 2012) This may suggest that the grouping of Da Vincis characters had ulterior motives, or it may merely show how he considered the issue of grouping in the same way as past artists in order to create the best possible composition.

10

Giampietrino The Last Supper (1520) The Tongerlo Abbey copy, itself is believed to have been painted from an earlier copy by Giampietrino, a contemporary of Leonardo. His copy was made around 1520 and is oil paint on canvas. It was full size but at some point the canvas was cut down at the top and sides. It shows a great deal of detail and is believed to be a faithful reproduction of the original. (Chapman 2006)

When considering further the intention of others, as opposed to Da Vinci, with a view to this particular image, it is only right to explore copies of this particular image. As Chapman states, Giampietrino was a contemporary of Da Vinci (Chapman, 2006), meaning that his work was shifting in style due to the later time at which he created some of his work. Giampietrino created work 1495 1549 that overlapped with the time at which Da Vinci worked, starting the same year Da Vinci began The Last Supper fresco, and carried on 30 years after his death (Wikipedia/ Giampietrino, 2013) As Giampietrino was an Italian painter working within a similar, partially post time frame, around the time the Vatican was in high power, it is comprehendible that he would seek to use similar if not the same, religious themes and compositions as da Vinci. Giampietrino was highly influenced by Da Vinci, likely due to the success da Vinci sustained throughout his artistic career; however he was an artist in his own right, meaning that his intentions were likely to have differed from that of this influence, due to da Vincis original fresco being all but destroyed it cannot be definitely said that the above image is an exact replica (Chapman, 2006), it could very well carry its own connotations or opinions suggested by Giampietrino. Has this copy affected the way people today may perceive the original?

11

Androgyny in Renaissance Art: How the period may have affected da Vincis work Has the time at which the work was created affected Da Vincis style, and due t o changes in how aspects such as masculine and feminine are viewed, has time changed peoples perception of this fresco? This part of the essay explores and suggests how androgynous male characters used in Renaissance Art could possibly affect the view to which people perceive Da Vincis intentions in including a feminine character in The Last Supper.

Leonardo da Vinci John the Baptist (1513 16.) Paris, Louvre

Jean Delville, The School of Plato (1898) Musee d'Orsay, Paris. When considering the impact of the androgynous male characters within Da Vincis work, most prominently the feminine looking John (Chapman, 2006) in The Last Supper; one must consider the historical norm of Renaissance art. 1) Androgynous bodies were thought

12

to be beautiful in the Renaissance, 2) Artistic nudes werent meant to be realistic. (Burke, 2011) The use of feminine males in art were common of the time and were not to be perceived as realistic portraits of men, rather representations; as Burke states The boundaries between male and female were conceived differently in Renaissance culture than they are today. (Burke, 2011) As Burke informs us, the Renaissance period was familiar with androgynous male figures in art, and use of male models for female figures wasnt unusual. (Burke, 2011) This is supportive of other aspects of how women were viewed during this time. For example, women were not allowed to act, as the prejudice of the time states that it was likely many artists would not want to use the female form to draw from. It is likely that male models were given feminine characteristics to suggest both genders due to the lack of use of female models.

A modern example of an androgynous male characters is The School of Plato work by Jean Delville shown above, which depicts all the male figures, with the exception of Jesus Christ, with effeminate qualities: Was this to purposely outline Christ as the point of focus and to portray his masculinity and power? Was Delville suggesting that the disciples were some how less manly due to their constant contact with and devotion to a male leader: possibly hinting at homosexuality? Or was Delville attempting to suggest that the disciples had been made somewhat divine by their masters prescience; was he in fact attempting to suggest an ideal, attempted by many artists of the time including Leonardo da Vinci? Although the disciples surrounding Christ are to the first glance very feminine, they also retain some masculine qualities such as the suggestion of a penis on a number of these characters. Similarly to the feminine qualities of Delvilles renditions of the disciples; the painting John the Baptist by da Vinci portrays John the Baptist with suggestions of long hair, a curvy figure and his right hand seems to be modestly covering his pectoral muscles as if he is concealing breasts. Could Delville and Da Vinci have been striving towards creating a visual reproduction of the full human which was supposedly created in the form of God with both male and female characteristics? (Ebreo, 1490)

13

Leone Ebreo in his Dialogues of Love) explains that when God created Adam, he was a complete human, containing both male and female parts; (Burke, 2011) Many possibly held the ideal of the full human due to a number of artists whom existed in the Renaissance period, such as Michael Angelo, creating similar feminine male characters. (Burke, 2011) As Burke outlines Ebreo states that humans are not complete entities and that only when both male and female are of one form, that this form is the creation in the image of God: Philo: It means that Adam, that is the first man, whom God created on the sixth day of the Creation, being a human individual, containing in himself male and female without division; and therefore the text says that God created Adam in his own likeness (Pescatori, 2010 quoting Ebreo, 1490)

The effect of this ideal on the work of Renaissance artists such as da Vinci seemingly caused them to strive towards depicting male characters with both masculine and feminine qualities to re-create the full human, supposedly created in the image of God: Divine entities with no particular gender, and what better way to depict no gender than by depicting flawlessly both the feminine and the masculine in one character.

With regards to The Last Supper, the use of one particular androgynous male character has caused a huge stir due to claims made in the 2003 novel by Dan Brown, The da Vinci Code. St. Johns hermaphrodite features suggest Mary Magdalene (Witoszek, 2009: 1) Brown suggests through his historical fiction novel, The Da Vinci Code, that the use of feminine qualities focussing on one particular character was not to suggest a divine male or genderless form, but to subtly portray a woman. The Holy Grail does indeed make an appearance in the last supper. Leonardo included her prominently. (Brown, 2003: 327)

14

The da Vinci Code: Creating new connotations to da Vincis work or unveiling an underlying intention?

This part of this essay looks deeper into the connotations and conspiracies, especially focussing on Dan Browns novel, which may have been outlining the intention behind Leonardo Da Vincis effeminate male character John in The Last Supper.

The da Vinci Code reads into the androgynous character, which before hand was perceived by most as the disciple John The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hand, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt female. (Brown, 2003: 327) Brown strongly suggests that the femininity of the John character is far beyond the Renaissance norm of effeminate males and suggests that this character was not intended to be male at all: That, my dear, Teabing replied, is Mary Magdalene. (Brown, 2003: 328) This claim massively changes the perceptions of da Vincis intention, from hinting at the full human, to actually portraying a woman. Brown continues to argue that, Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes. (Brown, 2003: 327) which strongly hints that the figure at the side of Christ must be female: Elaborating on this idea Lahr argues that one can find any number of very feminine male figures painted by Leonardo, this figure appears womanly in the extreme (Lahr, 2011: 236,), suggesting that the fact that because androgynous male characters can be found in Renaissance art and Da Vincis work, does not mean that male figures with feminine qualities are the same as female figures. This changes again the potential for the intention behind the fresco The Last Supper to the extent that da Vinci is suggested by Brown and Lahr; to have been attempting to make people feel very differently about Christianity.

Lahr brings into question another point as to how other characters in the fresco are interacting with this extremely feminine (Lahr, 2011: 236), which solidifies to an extent Browns claim further:

15

Is Peter expressing anger at the words he has just heard, or is he in fact threatening the figure to his right? Such aggression would be consistent with the vehemence Peter shows toward the Magdalene in the Gnostic gospels. (Lahr, 2011: 236)

Being as da Vinci spent an arduous amount of time grouping the characters in the fresco to create a believable scenario, Lahr brings in to question why the character Peter is seemingly threatening the John/ Mary character. Due to Peters left hand being placed on the androgynous characters shoulder and Peter clutching a knife behind his back with his right, Lahrs questioning may have some substance; however the Judas character is sitting between these two characters, which largely affects who Peter is perceived to be threatening due to Judas betraying Jesus.

Brown cleverly uses artistic terms to suggest how da Vinci has purposefully created visual clues as to who the feminine character to Jesus right might be:

Sure enough, their clothes were inverse colours. Jesus wore a red robe and blue cloak; Mary Magdalene wore a blue robe and red cloak. Yin and yangnote that Jesus and his bride appear to be joined at the hip and are leaning away from one another as if to create this clearly defined negative space between them the indisputable V shape at the focal point of the painting. It was the same symbol Langdon had drawn earlier for the Grail, the chalice and the female wombif you view Jesus and Magdalene as compositional elements another obvious shape will leap out at you A letter flawlessly formed letter M. (Brown, 2003: 329 - 330)

The use of visual language outlines clearly for the reader such aspects that create another sensory and thus deeper understanding of his suggestion.

Along with using clever visual language to describe what he wants his audience to see in the fresco, Brown uses an area of the gospel of Phillip to back up further his hypothesis: The Gospel of Philip is always a good place to start. Sophie read the passage:

And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all of the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, Why do you love her more than all of us? (Brown, 2003: 331)

16

Sheaffer argues against Browns idea by firstly disproving the credibility of his source:

He makes much of the Gospel of Philip, which does indeed depict Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene on the mouth (246). However, the introduction to that book in The Nag Hammadi Library in English states that it was "probably written in Syria in the second half of the third century C.E." In other words, it was composed between about 250 and 300, making it at least 150 years later than the canonical gospels. As such, it cannot possibly be considered a primary historical source comparable to the canonical texts. (Sheaffer, (n.d.) post 2003)

Although Brown uses quotations from the Bible to back up the statements made about characters in The Da Vinci Code, it appears that the sources he has used are debatable as to their integrity. Brown goes on to suggest that Da Vinci fully intended to show this feminine character as Mary Magdalene, Jesus wife and that they had a child together: her marriage to Jesus Christ. (Brown, 2003: 329). Sheaffer argues that this Wild claim (Sheaffer, (n.d.) Post 2003) was plagiarised from 1982 book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Micheal Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln and that this was not the only plagiarised source; Author Lewis Perdue also filed against Brown for taking plot material from two of his books (Sheaffer, (n.d.) Post 2003). Sheaffer goes on to draw attention to the name of The Da Vinci Code character Leigh Teabing, which is in fact created from the name of one of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors and an anagram of another. (Sheaffer, (n.d.) Post 2003) The questioning of Browns choice of quotation and the plagiarism claims, make this source less credible; however the popularity of this book and the suggestion of Da Vincis intentions have affected the way people perceive the fresco The Last Supper and Da Vinci Himself, could their possibly be an opposing reason as to why Da Vincis representation of John is so feminine than those already discussed?

17

Leonardo da Vinci himself: Were his intentions Christian? many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid magnitude. Leonardo da Vinci (Brown, 2003: 312 quoting da Vinci) Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wrenched mortals, open your eyes! Leonardo da Vinci(Brown, 2003: 312 quoting da Vinci) The above quotes are used by Brown in The Da Vinci Code as proof that Da Vinci was disenchanted with the Churchs teachings, was this Browns interpretation, or did da Vinci disagree with certain teachings the Catholic Church offered, due to his personal disposition? This area of this essay explores da Vincis personal life and what factors may have influenced his intention.

There was purportedly an accusation of sodomy in the 1400s made against da Vinci, which suggested he was homosexual or bisexual, however there was no further action and no proof of this; However Sigmund Freud, in 1910 published a book which later was known under the title Leonardo Da Vinci: A study in Psychosexuality which hinted strongly at Da Vincis sexuality, this study showed that Freud identified somewhat with his idea of how Da Vinci felt (Scherr, 2001). Scherr goes on to state:

Freud said, Da Vinci subordinated his sexual/artistic interests to the pursuit of scientific discovery Surprisingly, he abruptly exaggerates Leonardo's alleged reputation for homosexuality, evinced by the pleasure he took in having young men as his disciples. He notoriously overstates the significance of a passage in Da Vinci's writing that describes his infantile memory of a vulture opening his mouth with its tail and repeatedly striking it against his lips. Although Freud hints this memory indicates the great Renaissance man had sometime practiced fellatio, he reaches the contrary conclusion that scholarly Da Vinci probably lacked an active sexual life. Perhaps Freud considered Leonardo, with his intense scientific curiosity, a kindred spirit. (Scherr, 2001) Was Freud merely looking amongst those who he revered for acceptance or someone to identify (Scherr, 2001) with or was there truth in Feuds suggestion? Had da Vinci been homosexual, Browns claim of sacrilege or secret areas of Christianity may be more understandable, due to the potential feelings he may have had about the Catholic teachings

18

against such sexual preferences.

Not only did Leonardo refuse to paint risqu portraits or indite erotic tales, Freud says, but "it is doubtful whether Leonardo ever embraced a woman in love, nor is it known that he ever entertained intimate spiritual relations with a woman" (16). (Scherr, 2001 quoting Freud) Freud speaks openly with conviction about da Vincis sex life or lack there of and uses this, much like Brown uses his theories, to create leverage over his audience to emote and empathise with his way of thinking. Scherr hints that Freud may have been desperately attempting to find a way to justify his own feeling through suggesting da Vinci felt the same way:

he asserts that Leonardo's recollection of a childhood whipping by a bird's tail was actually a "screen memory" (unconscious disguise) for his later participation in fellatio--"a sexual act in which the member is placed into the mouth of the other person." Freud gratuitously stresses its passive, "effeminate" character, as if to impute these traits to Da Vinci: "Strangely enough, this phantasy is altogether of a passive character; it resembles certain dreams and phantasies of women and passive homosexuals (who play the feminine part in sexual relations)" (38).(Scherr, 2001) Scherr uses terms such as gratuitous to actively attempt to discredit what Freud is claiming; however if Freuds claims were in fact of truth, could it be that da Vinci depicted John in The Last Supper as he wished to be viewed by others? Could it be that da Vinci in fact identified with disciple Johns circumstances in almost effeminately following a male leader?

If Da Vinci was in fact had homosexual tendencies as Freud suggests, could this have affected the way he portrayed the sexes? Could a preconception be made by a modern day person based on Freuds work about da Vincis sexuality with a view to how he created art? Currently there has been a movement in gay rights and homosexuality in a number of societies in modern day and theoretically it is more accepted, but has the way homosexuality is now viewed affected how people perceive the intention behind da Vincis work? Or could the restrictions on homosexuality in the past have been a reason for da Vinci to rebel through

19

his art? Was it an outlet?

Critically speaking, had da Vinci been homosexual, he may have endeavoured to portray John the disciple as feminine to suggest to his public that he perceived men as men perceived women; it could be that the feminine qualities were not supposed to be taken literally, but instead to be taken as a representation of his own feelings.

20

Conclusion In conclusion, there are many external factors that have affected the way people perceive da Vincis actual intention behind The Last Supper fresco. The painting itself has been tampered with and restored over time and was created through experimental media which affected its longevity. The grouping of the characters plays a role as to how da Vinci intended the painting to be viewed due to the interaction between characters and items they hold which are depicted as trends in representations of The Last Supper by others. The time at which the fresco is set is questionable as to whether it depicts Passover due to visual aspects that suggest otherwise.

The time period, in which da Vinci worked in may have affected how he depicted characters in The Last Supper: the way art and how masculine and feminine qualities are perceived in modern day compared with the Renaissance period may have also played a part into how his intentions are perceived today.

The Da Vinci Code novel by Dan Brown may has had a large impact on how the painting is perceived today, due to the conspiracies that surround the androgynous male character of the disciple john, or as it is stated by Brown and Lahr, Mary Magdalene.

Da Vincis personal life including his sexuality may have also been factors that caused him to depict effeminate characters, which he identified with. There are many interpretations, however is an impossible factor as da Vinci is no longer alive and the painting is not as the original would have been portrayed.

Due to the damages and restoration, changes in time and perceptions of certain ideals, the affect of others interpretations and the suggestions of da Vincis life style, this images true meaning has become obscure. As Chapman states, This is supposed to be the moment when Jesus, in the words of John says "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me". The

21

picture shows the reaction of the disciples to this. (Chapman, 2006) But what other mysteries may be lurking? What was da Vincis real intention? I would invite you to study the picture, and indeed the text here for more hidden meanings. (Chapman 2006) The answer is unknown.

22

Bibliography: Appropedia (2013) Symbolism (Arts) [online] Updated 7th December 2013. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_(arts) [accessed 9th December 2013] Appropedia (2013) Giampoetrino [online] Last updated 14th November 2013. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giampietrino [accessed 9th December 2013] Baigent, Michael & Leigh, Richard & Lincoln, Henry (1982). Holy blood, Holy grail Bassano, Jacopo (1546). The Last Supper [online] Updated 8th October 2013. Available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacopo_Bassano_Last_Supper_1542.jpeg [accessed 9th December2013] Brown, Dan (2003). The Da Vinci code Brown, Judith C & Davis, Robert Charles (2001). Gender and society in Renaissance Italy Bruke, Jill (2011). Men with Breasts Michelangelos women 2 [online] Posted 5th February 2011. Available at: http://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/men-with-breasts2/ [accessed 9th December 2013] Callahan, Tim (2003). The royal myth of the da Vinci Code Chapman, John (2006). The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci [online] Available at: http://www.jaydax.co.uk/lastsupper/lastsupper.htm#John_or_Mary [accessed 9th December 2013] de Sede, Gerard (1967). LOr de Rennes [online] Updated 21st April 2011. Available at: http://gerhardhattinghsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/last-supper.html [accessed 9th December 2013] Delville Jean (1898). The School of Plato Musee d'Orsay, Paris [online] Avaliable at: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art/delville.html [accessed 9th December 2013] Ebreo Leone (c. 1465 Lisbon c. 1523 Naples). Dialogues of Love Eisler, Riane (1987). the Chalice and the Blade John 13.1 Klip, Ronald (2005 2012). Art and the bible [online] Available at: http://www.artbible.info/art/last-supper.html [accessed 9th December 2013] Lahr, Jane (2006) Searching for Mary Magdalene Matthew 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.5

23

Mexal, Stephen J (2011) Realism, Narrative History, and the Production of the Bestseller: The Da Vinci Code and the Virtual Public Sphere Moore, Matthew (2007) Da Vincis Last Supper: New conspiracy theory (article in the telegraph) [online] The Telegraph. Posted 30th July 2007. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1558952/Da-Vincis-Last-Supper-Newconspiracy-theory.html [accessed 9th December 2013] Perdue, Lewis (1999 Ed. 2001) Daughter of God Perdue, Lewis (2004) The da Vinci legacy Pescatori, Rosella (2010) The myth of the androgyne in Leone Eberos Dialogues of Love Reginer, Thomas (2009) The Last Supper and the da Vinci code frenzy Scherr, Arthur (2001) Leonardo Da Vinci, Sigmund Freud, and Fear of Flying Sheaffer, Robert (n.d. post 2003) The Da Vinci Code cult: a critical look at Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Ernst Mayr skeptic magazine volume 11 number 4 Sheaffer, Robert (1991) The making of the Messiah Valtorta, Maria (n.d.) Poem of the Man- God [online] Updated 8th December 2013. Available at: http://valtorta.org/the_last_supper_defaultpage.asp [accessed 9th December 2013] Witoszek, Nina (2009) Leonardo da Vinci our contemporary? The ecohumanist code of renaissance stages [online] Available at: http://www.ceres21.org/media/UserMedia/Leonardo-fin2-1.pdf [accessed 9th December 2013]

24