Comparison of Taddeo Gaddi’s Last
Supper and Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper.
The
two paintings to be considered here are Taddeo Gaddi’s last supper (est. 1335, Basilica
di Santa Croce) and Leonardo Da Vinci’s last supper (est. 1495, Santa Maria
della Grazie, Milan). The two depictions of the last supper clearly have their
differences. However, it can definitely be argued that they too share fairly
important similarities. Not necessarily in how the paintings look, but their
innovative nature in their contextual setting.
Firstly,
as one of the leading figures from the ‘high Renaissance’, Leonardo’s work (not
only paintings, but in general) pushed the boundaries – an example being the
dissection of human bodies in order to understand nature and the human form.
The consequence of this is that he had a sophisticated understanding of
naturalism and the faces of the apostles are testament to this. They are interacting
with Jesus and his revelation that one of them shall betray him (See Figure 1).
Although upon a quick glance the superiority of Leonardo’s version is clear, Gaddi’s
work must not be mistaken as completely unaffected by the Renaissance movement
that had begun to gather pace in this period. His affiliation with Giotto
clearly influenced some of the features of this painting. Under proper
inspection the seemingly motionless faces without expression are far more
naturalistic than the Byzantine faces of the past. What is amiss here, and what
is evident in Leonardo’s last supper is the abundance of interaction between
the figures. This, although considered superior, it is simply a different
style. The art historian Heinrich Wofflin expresses that ‘in both styles unity
is the chief aim’ and that ‘in the one case unity is achieved by a harmony of
free parts’ and the other by ‘a union of parts in a single theme’[1].
Thus, the figures in Gaddi’s work may not be exemplifying Dante’s theory of
‘Visible Parlare’ but he certainly approached his portrayal of the figures in a
highly sophisticated manner, as did Leonardo.
What
is rather unconventional in Gaddi’s work is the illusion of the scene being in
high relief, especially when other aspects of the painting (Judas’ diminution
and portrayal of the evil as ugly and the good as beautiful) are traditional
for the 14th century. (See Figure 2). The ambiguity of where the
legs of the table meet the ground and the dark illusive background make it feel
as if the image is protruding from the wall and expressed in the terms of
Paolettii, ‘the painter has thrust the figures into space in front of the
wall’.[2]
In contrast to this, Leonardo adopts a ‘spherical perspective’ which the art
historian Chastel asserts he is the credited inventor[3].
This play on perspective tricks the human eye into readjusting an image in
order to retain the correct proportion. Therefore Leonardo’s last supper if
considered in a flat perspective is arguably out of proportion; but because ‘we
have an image of the world seen in a slightly concave mirror’[4]
we naturally adjust the flat surface and replace it with a spherical surface
therefore the proportion remains true. The two however, were clearly deviating
from what was conventional in their respective time periods.
To
conclude, both Gaddi and Leonardo clearly have different styles. However the
misconception that Gaddi’s last supper is simply an older or degenerate style
can be disputed. This is because Gaddi, although clearly influenced by what was
accepted and popular in the 14th century, he began to experiment in
the confines of what was possible in early renaissance art. This is comparable
to Leonardo; even though he is clearly more advanced he was much the same in
that he was too experimenting.
Figure 1: From left to right: Bartholomew,
James son of Alpheus and Andrew are surprised; the following group of 3 include
Judas who is notably clutching for his bag of silver whilst Peter holds a knife
in anger (to represent the knife he used to cut off the ear of a Roman soldier)
and John faints. To the right of Jesus is Thomas who appears upset, James the
Greater who is in disbelief and Phillip who is pointing inwards and pleading
for an answer whilst Jude and Matthew are turned towards Simon who appears to
be shrugging.
Figure 2
[1] H. Wolfflin, Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art (Dover
Publications, 1986), 13.
[2] J. Paolettii, G. Radke, Art
in Renaissance Italy (Laurence King, 2005), 93.
[3] A. Chastel, Leonardo on Art and the Artist (Dover Publications,
2002), 99.
[4] A. Chastel, Leonardo on Art and the Artist (Dover Publications,
2002), 99.
No comments:
Post a Comment