Why might two representations from different artistic movements of the same biblical event differ greatly?

The Last Supper is the last meal Jesus celebrates with his twelve disciples before he is crucified on the cross by the Romans. An account of the Last Supper appears in all four New Testament Gospels. While each gospel writer varies the details of the story, all narratives include Jesus and his twelve disciples gathering for the traditional Passover meal, during which Jesus tells them grave prophecies of his betrayal. The disciples are deeply sorrowful to hear this revelation and proceed to ask if it will be one of them. Jesus reveals that the traitor is the disciple who shares a bowl with him. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus then instructs his disciples to eat the bread, which represents his own body, and drink the wine, which represents his blood. Luke’s gospel reverses the order of these events, and Matthew, Luke, and John’s gospel also reveal that Simon will deny Jesus three times. A reenactment of the Last Supper is integrated into every Catholic mass during Holy Communion and the Last Supper became a popular subject for artists beginning in the Middle Ages. Leonardo Da Vinci was the first artist to paint a widely-acclaimed Last Supper. He painted his fresco from 1495-1498 during the High Renaissance.1 This period of art stressed proportion, perspective, and overall technical mastery, along with the expressions of Humanism. Another artist, Peter Paul Rubens, drew inspiration from Da Vinci in his interpretation of the Last Supper. Rubens painted The Last Supper from 1630-1631 and he conveys many of the elements of the Baroque style.2 Aiming to evoke a heightened emotional response characteristic of the Baroque style, Rubens’ painting incorporates theatrical lighting, ominous darkness, and supernatural illumination of Christ.3 Both Da Vinci and Rubens paint their own interpretations of the Last Supper according to their own artistic movements. While they both capture the anxious tension of the disciples and the calm, holiness of Christ, they express distinct, yet compelling interpretations through masterful expression of their respective artistic styles.

Both painters seek to capture the somber mood and confusion at the Last Supper. Scholars have debated the reasons for apostles’ alarm in the paintings. Some argue that it arises from the disciples’ reactions to Jesus’ mystifying statements that the wine and bread represent his blood and body, and that they will be reunited in Heaven. While this interpretation is a possibility, most scholars agree that the tense moment depicted in the painting that when Jesus accuses one of them of betraying him. During the meal, Jesus says, “‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me’” (Matthew 26:21). The gospels report that each apostle begins asking, one after the other, “Surely you don’t mean me, Lord?” (Matthew 26:22-23). Both painters convey the intensity of this moment of confusion and the mixed emotions of sadness and disbelief that the apostles felt. Da Vinci depicts a heated debate arising, with all the apostles talking at once both to Jesus and each other. One can look at his painting and imagine a quiet meal suddenly erupting into din and clatter. Da Vinci relies on questioning and accusatory hand gestures and imposing postures to convey the apostles’ reactions as each one asks if “Lord, is it I?” (Matthew 26:22). Contrastingly, Rubens depicts the disciples as more introspective, frozen in a huddled position, too stunned to react and withholding their fears. Rubens conveys their startled and sorrowful reactions through their facial expressions and body language. Rubens paints reflected light in each of the disciples’ eyes, making them much more realistic and adding to the overall heightened emotion of the painting. The heavy drapery and the thick, ornamented marble columns create a menacing weightiness above the disciples’ heads and reinforce the somber mood. Both artists clearly distinguish Judas, the disciple who would betray Jesus. Da Vinci separates Judas from the others. In his painting, Judas is the only one leaning on the table and away from the group, and he is depicted with a clenched fist, likely holding a bag of money. In Rubens’ painting, Judas, unlike every other apostle, looks away from Jesus, and eerily towards the viewer. He has a seemingly guilty look in his eyes and expresses extreme concern in his face, and is covering his mouth with his hand, which further suggests that he is hiding something. Each artist conveys the confusion and heightened emotion meaningfully, yet differently in both works.

While both artists sought to portray a realistic interpretation of the Last Supper, Da Vinci interprets scripture more literally, while Rubens interprets it more dramatically and theatrically. Tellingly, while both paintings include the iconic elements of the wine and the bread, neither painting shows the men eating or drinking, suggesting that both authors are concerned less with the meal than with the tense relationships stemming from the prophecies that Jesus tells. Da Vinci reinterprets Scripture and makes it seem not only like the ask, “Lord, is it I?” but also ask which of them would betray Jesus and feel outrage at having a traitor sitting among them (Matthew 26:22). Da Vinci shows an apostle, maybe Peter, holding a knife, as if he is preparing for revenge on the one who would betray Jesus. Symbolically, the knife is positioned directly behind Judas’ back. Da Vinci closely interprets scripture by painting Judas as having his hands extended towards the same bowl as Jesus, which is significant because, as it is written in the Gospels, “Jesus said, ‘He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me’” (Matthew 26:23). Rubens interprets scripture more loosely. First, he deviates from scripture, because, unlike Matthew 26:21 which describes the apostles and Jesus as eating while Jesus tells his revelation, none of the apostles has food (Matthew 26:21). Rubens may deviate from realism to keep the emphasis on the figures and their emotions. Jesus is set apart from his disciples because he is the only person with bread and wine at the table, which elevates his importance. Rubens paints a halo around Jesus’ head, giving him a supernatural aura, and depicts Jesus as gazing towards heaven. He depicts the apostles as introspective and genuinely concerned, with a mix of sorrow and worry, but not vengeance. Both painters follow the scriptural core of the story, but add their own interpretations and emphasize different biblical aspects.


Some of the interpretative differences arise out of the prominent artistic techniques of their respective time periods. Regarding the composition of the paintings, both painters show Jesus as the focal point of the painting, but Da Vinci identifies the focal point with mathematically precise lines, as was typical of the High Renaissance, while Rubens utilizes more circles and curves. Da Vinci employs a technique rediscovered in the Renaissance, linear perspective, which utilizes converging parallel lines that intersect at a single vanishing point to create an illusion of depth. Da Vinci’s vanishing point was Jesus’ head, which is meant to draw focus toward the main subject. His use of linear perspective is complicated by the single vantage point it relies on. If one draws an imaginary line extending from any of the ceiling partitions or from the edges of walls and ceiling, the lines all pass through Jesus’ head. Another prominent mathematical feature Da Vinci employs is symmetry. Every architectural element, from the wall panels to the six-by-six molding decor on the ceiling, is symmetric. The absolute symmetry of the lines and rectangles contrasts sharply with the disarray of the disciples. Their asymmetrical arrangement and postures visually create the disorder and disharmony that they feel. At the center, partially symmetric, is Jesus. His body forms a symmetric triangle shape, with his head at the apex. His gaze is titled to the right and his face radiates a center of calmness in a frenzied scene. His head is directly framed by the middle window on the back wall. The arc above the window is the only curved element and is suggestive of a halo. In Rubens’ painting, the vanishing point is more obscure, but it could likely be behind Jesus’ head. In his painting, implied lines are utilized to lead the viewer’s attention to the apostles’ focus on Jesus and Jesus’ blessing of the food and wine. The circular table and the circular grouping of the apostles creates a more intimate setting that welcomes the viewer. While Da Vinci’s rectangular table divides the viewer from the action, Rubens’ arrangement positions the viewer as completing the circle. There is also a clear division of Judas in Rubens’ work. Judas sits directly opposite of Jesus. Rubens places a dog directly under the feet of the traitor, Judas, perhaps an ironic element, since dogs are typically regarded as faithful companions and symbols of loyalty. While both artists position Jesus as the focal point, Da Vinci takes a largely mathematical approach to composition, Rubens composes a more natural arrangement interspersed with dramatic elements.

Both Da Vinci and Rubens utilize color, light, and darkness in their paintings, but while Da Vinci characteristically focuses on painting light and darkness with scientific precision, Rubens employs light and darkness to create a theatrical effect. Da Vinci studied optics and light and focused on how he would portray each ray of light.4 Da Vinci desired for the light sources to come from the back windows and have the rays shine on certain parts of Jesus and the apostles’ bodies. Natural light coming from the windows on the back wall symbolically frames Jesus’ body. The other elements of the fresco are in shadow and therefore were painted in darker colors.5 The only element of darkness that Da Vinci uses is the darkness of the tapestries on the sides in order to give a dark contrasting background to the apostles. Da Vinci’s use of natural light appears more peaceful than the dramatic use of light and foreboding darkness in Rubens’ work. Jesus, the focal point of Rubens’ painting, is surrounded by light. The light comes from both natural sources (candles) and supernatural sources in the form of a beam of light shining on him from absolute darkness, or potentially from heaven, as he was fated to die. The holy objects, the sacrament (bread and the wine), as well as the book on the fireplace’s mantle, are bathed in light. The strange illumination of holy elements lends an air of sacred mysticism to the painting. The darkness on the left of the painting that obscures the recesses of the room is very ominous and symbolic of pending evil. The disciples look to be huddled around Jesus because his light protects them from the menace of the surrounding darkness, into which some of the apostles on the left side of the painting appear to fade. Positioned between the light and the darkness, the apostles appear as if they are caught in a battle between the cosmic forces of good and evil. Both painters depict the apostles in primary-colored cloaks, and they both paint Jesus in red garments, likely to draw the viewers’ attention to their focal point and to foreshadow his imminent death. Da Vinci also paints Jesus in a blue cloak, which, during the Renaissance, suggested someone of statute. In both Rubens and Da Vinci’s works, Judas is depicted with the darkest hair and eye color and, unsurprisingly, his face and robe are in shadow. The gold cloak over Judas’ dark blue robe may symbolize that he is a “good” disciple on the outside, but a traitor on the inside. Both artists associate Jesus with light, though Da Vinci executes his use of light more mathematically, while Rubens utilizes light and darkness more dramatically to heighten a supernatural effect.

Da Vinci’s exactitude towards unity and balance contrasts with Rubens’ more natural, less staged approach to unity and balance. Da Vinci’s mathematical precision naturally lends itself to creating balance and unity in his work. While Jesus is the focal point, all the elements to the left of him are a tidy mirror image of all the elements to the right. Both walls have exactly four tapestries, and the ceiling is six panels long by six panels wide. The table, heavy and prominent in the foreground, feels slightly unbalanced and weighty, but operates to unify the line of apostles. Da Vinci infuses a sense of disunity to liven the work and increase visual interest through the leaning, craning, gesturing figures. However, even within the disarray of the apostles, there is order. The apostles are arranged in four groups of three, suggesting the symbolism of the Holy Trinity. Jesus’ head is the apex of the central triangle, whose base is formed by the table. The three disciples to the left and right are grouped in triangles, offshoots of Jesus’ central triangle, and the three on the both ends form rectangles. Aiming for a different conception, and not looking to utilize mathematics or perfect symmetry, Rubens employs elements of balance to heighten drama and emotion, reflective of the Baroque style. The vertical center line is created by the holiest elements – the shaft of heavenly light, Jesus, and the Eucharist – and the edge of the table, which divide his composition in half. The heavy Baroque architectural elements in the upper right are balanced by the illuminated folds of the cloaks as well as the decanter in the foreground of the bottom right, as objects closer to the edges of a painting create greater visual weight.6 The painting also achieves balance through Rubens’ clever interplay of light and shadow. The left side of the painting recedes ever further into shadow and darkness, in stark contrast with the increasing light on the right side, creating tension between light and darkness, symbolically good and evil. Additionally, Rubens softens edges of some objects, which gives the figures less weight and increases the sense of unity throughout. The apostles, six on each side of Jesus, are arranged in a balanced circle, conveying a sense of unity and intimacy. Both paintings exhibit profound unity, but Da Vinci primarily achieves his through symmetry of foreground and background objects, while Rubens achieves his through color, shading, and placement.

Da Vinci and Rubens both make use of movement and stillness, but while Da Vinci achieves movement through his gesticulating figures, Rubens interestingly achieves movement through the inanimate objects. In Da Vinci’s fresco, the repeating, stable rectangles and the symmetry of the walls create a heavy, static background. Even in the foreground, Da Vinci’s weighty, stone table has stillness and, like the background, appears lifeless. The only dramatic movement arises out of the bustling, gesticulating apostles. Some of them have risen from their seats, as if in protest. Even the seated apostles are craning their necks in different directions and leaning their bodies, as if they’ve become destabilized by Jesus’ revelation. The three apostles on the far right appear confused, but tense, with their jaws clenched, and one gesturing towards Jesus. The apostle on Jesus’ right is gesturing upwards, possibly foreshadowing Jesus’ arrival in heaven. In contrast to his rambunctious crowd of apostles, Jesus sits in stillness, his arms and body balanced and centered, suggestive of the underlying motif of calmness because Jesus accepts his fate. Though in Da Vinci’s work the apostles lean away from Jesus and whisper amongst each other, all of the apostles in Rubens’ work lean, aghast, toward Jesus except, appropriately, Judas. And yet, in Rubens’ painting, the elements of movement and stillness are reversed: the background is wild with movement, while the figures are fairly motionless. The apostles seem to be paused in a moment of shocked, reflective stillness, suspended in time. One apostle folds his hands in tense prayer, while other apostles’ hands are hidden or in resting positions, congruent with their reflective states. Calm and serene, Jesus is depicted fixed in meditation, his head upturned towards the heavens. Rubens contrasts their stillness with wild, dramatic movements of the inanimate elements of the painting. Known for his billowing garments, Rubens paints the figures’ voluminous cloaks with wavy folds to create movement, as well as a sweeping, foreboding drapery. Additionally, the flaming candlelight and book on the mantle, with its pages slightly upturned, call forth a sense of movement. The movements of the inanimate objects may suggest a draft in the room, contributing to a feeling of cold and a supernatural ominousness and contrasting with the feeling of warmth at the table. Slight movement can also be detected in those apostles’ hands suspended in the air: both the apostle to the right of Judas and the apostle with his hand on the table point their fingers suggestively at Judas. There is obvious tension in both paintings, emphasized by the apostles’ movement against a background of idyllic stillness in Da Vinci’s work, and highlighted by the layered, lively background contrasting with the still table of thoughtful apostles in Rubens’ work. 


Da Vinci’s interpretation of the Last Supper sets the apostles frenzy in contrast with Jesus’ composure. Da Vinci clearly conveyed a sense of mathematical precision and mastery through his strategic use of lines, light, placement, and symmetry, even the setting of the room itself. Such precision can make a painting appear too ordered and staged, but mathematical exactitude was very much part of the High Renaissance movement he painted in, and his linear perspective was an astounding accomplishment for his time. Da Vinci’s painting may also appear less emotionally compelling to a viewer when compared with Rubens’ painting with rich detail and drama. Rubens interprets the story as a much more dramatic, supernatural biblical event in a more intimate setting. Though Rubens’ painting may appear overly-dramatized in its use of light and darkness to convey elements of the supernatural, it is a way in which one can comprehend the divinity of Christ through Rubens’ depiction of light and Jesus’ expression that conveys calm anticipation of death. Rubens employs more elements to accentuate Jesus’ divine holiness because, as revealed also through the ornate Baroque architecture incorporated in the background, artists and architects in the Baroque period worked to display the might and power of the Catholic church. Just as Rubens drew inspiration from Da Vinci, so did the famous artists Tintoretto, and Bassano, and these artists’ works served as inspiration to painters through the twentieth century, like Salvador Dalí. Both works help the viewer to better understand this tense and impassioned, deeply human, yet deeply holy moment at the Last Supper.




Bibliography

Notes

1. Áine Cain, “Da Vinci’s Iconic Depiction of Easter’s Beginnings Has a Violent History It Barely Survived,” Business Insider, last modified March 26, 2018, accessed April 9, 2020, (https://www.businessinsider.com/last-supper-leonardo-da-vinci-2017-3.

2. Joy of Museums Staff, “‘The Last Supper’ by Peter Paul Rubens,” Joy of Museums: Museums, Art Galleries and Historical Sites, last modified 2020, accessed April 9, 2020, https://joyofmuseums.com/museums/europe/italy-museums/milan-museums/brera-art-gallery-pinacoteca-di-brera/the-last-supper-by-peter-paul-rubens/.

3. Carol Strickland, The Annotated Mona Lisa: A Crash Course in Art History from Prehistoric the Present (Kansas City, USA: Andrews McMeel, 2018), 50.

4. Nicole Bitler, “Leonardo da Vinci’s Study of Light and Optics: A Synthesis of Fields in The Last Supper,” Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology and Society 4, no. 1 (2011), accessed April 10, 2020, http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/239/133/0.

5. Ibid.

6. “Creating Balance in Your Painting,” video, 10:19, YouTube, posted by Tim Packer Fine Arts, August 7, 2015, accessed April 9, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXok8xQ8jPk.