A Visit to The Last Supper

Our good friend Jan and her two kids were lucky enough to travel to Milan for a week not long ago. While there, they had the pleasure of visiting Leonardo DaVinci's fresco of The Last Supper. After they returned, Jan wrote of her impressions. I especially enjoy her comments about seeing the painting in the context of the room in which it was painted. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I.

My kids and I did go to see the Last Supper while we were in Milan. You are allowed into the room which contains it for about 15 to 20 minutes with about 25 other people. This is not a problem as the room is massive: it was designed as a refectory (read: cafeteria/dining hall) for the monks and has since been used as a variety of things, including, by Napoleon, as a stables (what a guy). You are ushered into the room through a series of automatically operated, glass door-separated compartments - very science fiction-esque. This is done to reduce the amount of dust and air contaminants. I tried as best as I could to view the painting in an unbiased way.

Two things struck me immediately, one as someone who has over the years viewed a number of famous paintings and the other as an American with all of an American's cultural biases:
- The photographs of this painting more than do it justice. The painting itself, per se, is not better in person. Bigger but not better. That was very striking. In contrast, you really have to be in the presence of other of Leonardo's paintings, e.g. the Mona Lisa, to fully appreciate them.
- Judas is undeniably portrayed as a black man. That just kind of wacked me in the face, American biases and all. Not that I should find that strange: it is the usual ancient Indo-European black=evil, white=good world myth. Very pronounced (I suppose you can make a case for him being a 'very dark Semite' but lets hold with basic Indo-European imagery: however you call it, he's black).

What is striking about the painting and makes seeing it in context worthwhile, is its setting - high on the wall of a dining hall. This is the first painting of the Last Supper where all the participants are clustered on one side of the table. In context the intent is obvious: the monks eating in the room would immediately feel themselves drawn into the painting, drawn in to the ritual meal. Arranging the apostles around the table would have made it 'just another painting' - arranging them along one side dramatically invites participation by the diners. An the painting is a continuation of the room: the windows in the painting neatly match the other windows in the room, the subtle lighting in the painting is done from the point of view of real sunlight shining from the real windows in the actual room. The effect really is pretty dramatic, I thought. The painting's quality and clarity are no better in person; the sense of participation and of really understanding the context, 'getting' the why of it, made the visit worth it.

And, of course, the issue of John the Baptist. If you come to this painting a devout believer - or even just someone familiar with the Christianity and the import of this moment - you have interpret the figure to Christ's right as John the Baptist - there is no one else this can be. If, however, you are a total alien and come without bias to this painting, the situation is a bit more ambiguous. All of the other figures in the painting (with the exception of Jesus himself) are unapologetically male, and there are lots of cues to tell you that: beards, complexion, posture, facial expressions, clothes. None of these apply to the figure on Jesus' right: the face is much much lighter, whiter than any other, the expression much more feminine; the hairline is feminine, the figure's cape is pink - a feminine color then as now, the gentle inclination of the head is suggestively feminine, as is the lay of the hair. The postures of all of the other participants are active; this figure's posture is completely passive, falling away, as it were. All of the other figures, with the exception of Judas, are in motion: not 'John'. I think if you didn't know the story and came totally innocent to this image, it would be really hard to think "oh, that's a man". But then, we have no real way of knowing Leonardo's context.

The possibility exists that Judas and John are portrayed as they are to contrast their characters. The painting is arranged in a rhythm of triplets of figures. To Jesus' right, the most meaningful triplet at the table consists of Judas, Peter and 'John'. Peter, like all the other apostles, is in motion. Judas and John are not. Judas is sitting with his back straight up, quiet, the only one not pointing, lamenting, or gasping. And only Peter's head separates Judas from 'John'. 'John', white while Judas is black, leaning while Judas is erect, the right side of John's face and head forming a parallel line with Judas' profile. Or is this triplet subtly about Peter? Peter grasps a knife behind Judas' back with one hand while the other rests on John's shoulder, potentially to console him, or else simply to focus his attention. The only feature of John's that is in anyway suggestive of "maleness" via current cultural norms are his hands … folded on the table in front of him.

What I did find, in a book I bought in the gift shop, is other images of John by Leonardo. They, too, portray a decidedly feminine effect. So maybe for some reason Leonardo's conception of John was just as the most effeminate of the apostles. Maybe John's very white face in the Last Supper is strictly meant as a stark contrast to Judas' black face to which it is in clear and close opposition. But then again, maybe not. And we'll never know.

;-)

Jan
glad I went