The Story of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Last Supper - Essay Example

Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper Leonardo da Vinci was not born into the art explosion that was Florence during the Renaissance Period, but instead grew up in a small village just outside of Vinci where his explorations into the world of nature would be of major importance to his future work as an artist, inventor and engineer. It wasn’t until he was approximately 14 years old that he arrived in Florence, as an apprentice in the workshop of Verrocchio (Labella, 1990). Leonardo eventually found fame in Milan in many of the above fields. Indeed, it was in Milan that Leonardo painted one of the works for which he is most famous, a 15 x 29 foot painting of the Last Supper that appears in the refectory of the Dominican convent of the Santa Maria della Grazie church. The painting was commissioned by Ludovico il Moro and was painted between the years of 1496-1498. His extensive research in developing the painting is evident in his sketches, notes and reports of his search for real life models to use in the composition as well as his experimental blend of tempera and oil paints that were intended to provide him with the depth and breadth of color ability he desired (Shea, 2006). One of the issues that has remained a topic of large debate, however, centers around his treatment of the architectonic elements of the piece. One of these concerns centers on the unique viewpoint Leonardo established for this painting should the architectonic elements of the painting achieve the trompe l’oeil effect of extending the physical room in which it was painted. Lillian Schwartz (1988: 89) indicates the proper vantage point from which one should view the painting is actually about 15 feet above the floor, making it difficult for anyone standing in the building to recognize the true perspective. In her article, Schwartz explains the methods she employed to find the proper vantage point at which an individual should stand in order to make elements such as the tapestries, ceiling and other architectural aspects of the painting blend in seamlessly with the physical elements of the Refectory. Leading into this discussion, though, Schwartz illustrates the ways in which Leonardo’s perspective was similar to the necessary elements of stage design during the Italian Renaissance. “To achieve the perspective effect, the size of the houses diminished rapidly towards the rear of the stage, where they stopped at a wall or canvas that was parallel to the front of the stage. To avoid shattering the perspective, the actors performed against the scenery at the front of the stage, rather than in the scene, where they would appear too large for the setting” (Schwartz, 1988: 91-92). She suggests he did this as an intentional means of inviting everyone in the room to the feast despite the automatic separation that took place as a result of the extreme rectilinear shape of the room. Her idea is supported by the evidence brought forward through her computer-generated analysis. Using computer mapping, Schwartz is able to demonstrate that while proper perspective can only be properly attained at 15 feet above the floor, Leonardo’s intentions were rather to bring attention to the welcoming left hand of Christ upon entering the room and to provide those sitting in the room to benefit as well from the illusion of additional space. “Leonardo sacrified the view from the back of the room to attain the proper height for the vanishing point to satisfy the requirements needed to insure the view at the door and along the side wall” (Schwartz, 1989: 94). Through this analysis, she is also able to demonstrate why Leonardo might have done this, as painting according to ‘true’ perspective would have destroyed the awesome effect the painting has to include viewers as much of the painting would have been placed ‘out of sight’ for viewers gathered along the side walls, where the monks would normally sit. As a result of this study, Schwartz suggests that the reason so many scholars have struggled to identify the perspective of the painting has been because of the traditional attempt to place oneself at the level of the vanishing point to determine perspective. Perspective also plays a role in the discussion by Thomas Brachert (1971) in the examination of Leonardo’s connections between music and proportion in art. According to Brachert, Leonardo equated the proper measure for proportion depended upon the same kind of interval scale as that achieved in writing music, with the size of a man diminishing by half at each interval (Brachert, 1971: 461). In working to determine Leonardo’s exact method of determining proportion, Brachert examines his equations that make this connection in direct analysis of the Last Supper. Using Leonardo’s notes, he establishes how the proportion grid is laid out: “If you place the vertical plane at one braccio from the eye, the first object, being at a distance of four brachia from your eye, will diminish by three quarters of its height at that plane; and if it is eight braccia from the eye by seven eights; and if it is sixteen braccia off, it will diminish by fifteen sixteenths of its height, and so on, by degrees, as the space doubles the diminution will double” (Richter cited in Brachert, 1971: 464). Through this analysis, he shows how the proportion of the figures corresponds to the musical intervals of fourths, fifths and octaves while the proportional measurements of the background and architectural elements correspond with the ratios of third major and minor, octaves and sixth major. The difference in intervals is suggested as being driven by Leonardo’s intention to place the figures close to the level of the picture plane while allowing the architectural elements to fall back in the scene to several grid units back. However, this reasoning does not solve the remaining problem regarding how the foreshortened interstices were established. These are shown to be most closely aligned to the measurements of the Golden Section. Thus, Brachert concludes, Leonardo achieves his great masterpiece in the Santa Lucia della Grazie through the careful and precise blending of a variety of theories, presenting “an alternating interpenetration of the divina proportions with the Pythagorean intervals which radiate as a harmonic diagram in the sense of a musica mundane from the universal center, Christ” (Brachert, 1971: 465), with a little of the Golden Rule thrown in for good measure. While each of these authors seems to have found ‘the answer’ to Leonardo’s ability to achieve the effect he has in the Last Supper without any immediately obvious codified techniques even by his own standards, their explanation of this marvel are quite different. Both point to the discrepancies seen in the tapestries, ceiling, floor and other architectural elements as being the clues to deciphering Leonardo’s approach to his viewers. Brachert, arguing that there are no true discrepancies in measurements, simply a complex blending of measurements to achieve a specific, well-mapped concept, indicates that Leonardo achieved his effects by applying differing yet complementary units of measure to his rule of proportion. This assessment is based upon a straight-forward analysis of the painting, taken out of the context of the surrounding building and with no real attention given to vantage point and how different viewing locations might affect the overall view. Schwartz, on the other hand, indicates that Leonardo intentionally warped his measurements as a means of achieving a stage effect in the painting, thereby making it accessible to the used portions of the room. Rather than indicating any kind of complex measurements having taken place in Leonardo’s distortions, Schwartz implies that, after having drawn the first sketch to ‘true’ perspective, Leonardo intuitively redirected the painting to meet his needs. However, like Leonardo’s proportional measurements, a blending of the two ideas might be applicable. Viewing the images provided by Schwartz of the painting within the three-dimensional context of the Refectory, it seems clear that the perspective of the doorway must be the proper vantage point intended by Leonardo as the painting seems to fall into shape from this point. It has been noted, as well, from other works of this nature, that having the proper viewpoint to the painting helps achieve the illusion of reality. Following Schwartz’s discussion into the various reasons why Leonardo might have ‘set up his stage’ in this manner also seems to logically explain the reason why he would choose to paint for an audience that was not standing 15 feet off the floor to gain the proper vantage point as it would have been much more important to include those individuals taking up their proper places along either side of the room. However, this theory actually supports Brachert’s idea of a multi-faceted system of proportional measurement as Leonardo divided his illusionistic stage into three dimensions, applying a different and complementary rule of measurement to each spatial division and thereby achieving the perspective effects discussed in Schwartz. Works Cited Brachert, Thomas. “A Musical Canon of Proportion in Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper.” The Art Bulletin. Vol. 53, N. 4, (Dec. 1971), pp. 461-466. Labella, Vincenzo. A Season of Giants: 1492-1508. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1990. Shea, Lisa. “The Last Supper: Leonardo da Vinci, Mary Magdalene, The Hand and Knife.” (2006). Minerva Web Works. November 9, 2006 < http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html> Schwartz, Lillian F. “The Staging of Leonardo’s Last Supper: A Computer-Based Exploration of its Perspective.” Leonardo Supplemental Issue. Vol. 1, Electronic Art, (1989), pp. 89-96. Read More