There is a version of The Last Supper that is not well known, but is, arguably, a much better version than the famous painting by Renaissance Master, Leonardo Da Vinci.
Which one better depicts the Last Supper? Depends on how you mean that. I like both paintings very much. I think everyone knows Leonardo's painting, even if they aren't Christian. The La Touche painting is one I've never seen before. I think the differences between the two are a function mostly of when they were painted. In Leonardo's time the goal of the artist was to glorify God with grandiose depictions of biblical stories. The impressionist style of La Touche is much more intimate and conveys a warmth that is lacking in a lot of Renaissance paintings.
So, which one is the better depiction depends on whether you favor something that conveys the grandness of God, or something that conveys the intimacy of the actual event of the Last Supper. Although, one could argue that the focus on the chalice in the La Touche painting accomplishes the first idea, just in a different way. On the flipside, the way the disciples are huddled together around the table in the Leonardo painting offsets the grandness of the room.
Overall, I favor the Leonardo painting, although that may just be out of familiarity.
You've stopped my in my tracks this morning. Your analysis is excellent. But to see for the first time that painting by La Touche has taken my breath away....and left me in awe of that moment that defined sacrifice, forgiveness and devotion.
Thank you! I believe both artists made amazing works of art, but I just wanted to bring attention to someone who was far less well known because his patrons were not the Duke of Milan lol
You expose and embody a relationship to art that is novel and altogether meaningful. Thoughtfully written as always and very encompassing of how our perception can change the conception of what we regard in art <3
Thank you very much, it's great to have this enjoyable discussion with you!
Your article reminds of an art history course I took on Da Vinci a few years ago. I remember reading how Leonardo's masterpiece was highly praised by the thinkers, artists, and intellectuals of the Age of Enlightenment (such as Goethe). Neoclassicists were in love with Da Vinci's perfect use of symmetry, geometry, and linear perspective.
Both paintings I believe are trying to convey different aspects of the Last Supper as you pointed out. Although I believe La Touche's painting is "better" insofar as it better reflects the Christian remembrance of the Last Supper, there is more of a mysticism surrounding Christ in La Touche's. He is in the center and there is a light surrounding him. Da Vinci's Christ lacks those elements and when you consider the background, he seems to blend in with it like the other apostles.
This line of thinking is one of the reasons why modern art has degenerated to the point it has today. To be led by feelings, pretty colours, and ambiguity which allows the viewer to inject their own bias, as opposed to learning something new.
You are using faults in the painters ability or in in this work in particular as pros. To be frank the draughtsmanship in Le Louche's painting is very poor, the faces are ugly block abstractions that look dead and have zero charm, the hands have these creepy undefined fingers with broken wrists. Let alone the complete blurred nature of the painting; the blurring of edges of less important parts can be good to emphasise the focus of a painting, which is crucial to great paintings, as seen in Velasquez's work. Hence the ethos that often it is that which you leave out which is more important than that you put in. However this isn't done with any of the finesse seen in Velazquez.
But this desiring of the blurry and carrying thoughts like 'but it is executed with such perfection in perspective that this becomes a focus of the painting itself.' Like this idea you can't have beautiful technique and beautiful story telling is haughty to see. As it is this which led to the ever growing blurriness, deadness and ugliness we see in Millet, Cezanne, Picasso, Pollock and so on, as we see art seriously decaying from around 1850 onwards.
Both are beautiful, it is hard to pick a favorite. Thank you for bringing the LaTouche version to my attention, I’d never seen it before and I am impressed with its movement and beauty.
Great pictorial analysis, although as a Traditional Catholic I reject the theological idea that the last supper is just a memory. Instead embracing the doctrine of transubstantiation.
How do memories work? Do you remember them as perfect movies with all the details? Or is it more fuzzy? I was impressed by La Touche's painting because of how close it actually sticks to the Trad Catholic idea of transubstantiation because if you'll notice, the clearest thing in the picture is the chalice containing the blood. This is because, as far as I understand, according to the Catholic idea, the holy communion is how everything else matters and is remembered as well.
How do memories work? Do you remember them as perfect movies with all the details? Or is it more fuzzy?
Some I remember as documentaries, some as dreams, it depends.
In the case of the painting, I love La Touche's depiction of the First Mass (The last supper), precisely because of how artistically-catholic it is. Since La Touche was French, odds are that he was a Traditional Catholic as well.
The doctrine of transubstation states that the wine transforms into the blood of Christ, which is very aptly represented by Mr. Gaston.
When I read this section on your article: "The Last Supper is a story in the Bible in which Jesus established the Holy Communion. He told his disciples that he would be betrayed and die but that by drinking wine and eating bread, they could remember the sacrifice he was about to make for them. " I understood it as you refering to the Last Supper being a ritual for remembrance, which is the Lutheran position.
Perhaps I misunderstood your own position, but is not yet clear if you embrace more the Lutheran symbolism or the Trad Cath Position (at least with regards to the interpretation of this art piece).
If memory serves, your public religious position is neither protestant nor Catholic, and therefore, I could get wrong your words since I lack some background regarding your cultural perceptions of western religious themes.
It's interesting, I have grown up in western culture, surrounded by western literature and art, which requires a thorough understanding of Christianity and more specifically Catholicism, to appreciate. This is why I've had to kind of educate myself on the religion as much as I can if I ever want to write seriously about Western Art. Many postmodernist secular art writers will not understand the importance of Catholicism as the foundation for Western Art and that's why I think they get so much wrong about it.
As an art historian myself, I can attest that it's useful to know some basic facts about Christianity and the Bible in order to understand and appreciate Western art. It would be like watching Disney's Hercules without knowing anything about Greek mythology!
Yes, the Catholic mindset and framework is what influenced Europe's art the most. La Touche's is a great example of this precisely for the reasons you mentioned in your article, meaning, representing the spiritual dimension of the Sacramental Rite, as opposed as just a material realistic take.
As an additional take, you don't see much protestant art depicting Jesus Christ because they also rejected the idea of having religious images, which ensured that stunning Christian art was mostly done by Catholics.
Which one better depicts the Last Supper? Depends on how you mean that. I like both paintings very much. I think everyone knows Leonardo's painting, even if they aren't Christian. The La Touche painting is one I've never seen before. I think the differences between the two are a function mostly of when they were painted. In Leonardo's time the goal of the artist was to glorify God with grandiose depictions of biblical stories. The impressionist style of La Touche is much more intimate and conveys a warmth that is lacking in a lot of Renaissance paintings.
So, which one is the better depiction depends on whether you favor something that conveys the grandness of God, or something that conveys the intimacy of the actual event of the Last Supper. Although, one could argue that the focus on the chalice in the La Touche painting accomplishes the first idea, just in a different way. On the flipside, the way the disciples are huddled together around the table in the Leonardo painting offsets the grandness of the room.
Overall, I favor the Leonardo painting, although that may just be out of familiarity.
Thanks for the interesting lesson.
I had no idea. Stuff like this is why i lurv substack.
You've stopped my in my tracks this morning. Your analysis is excellent. But to see for the first time that painting by La Touche has taken my breath away....and left me in awe of that moment that defined sacrifice, forgiveness and devotion.
Thank you! I believe both artists made amazing works of art, but I just wanted to bring attention to someone who was far less well known because his patrons were not the Duke of Milan lol
Michelangelo's Last Judgement and a Damned Soul... LIFE IMITATES ART ??? https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/michaelangelos-last-judgement-and
You expose and embody a relationship to art that is novel and altogether meaningful. Thoughtfully written as always and very encompassing of how our perception can change the conception of what we regard in art <3
Leonardo's Last Supper is the best, hands down. This article is wrong (but still fun to read!).
I’m glad you liked it :) I was happy to spark the discussion at the very least even if you disagree!
Thank you very much, it's great to have this enjoyable discussion with you!
Your article reminds of an art history course I took on Da Vinci a few years ago. I remember reading how Leonardo's masterpiece was highly praised by the thinkers, artists, and intellectuals of the Age of Enlightenment (such as Goethe). Neoclassicists were in love with Da Vinci's perfect use of symmetry, geometry, and linear perspective.
Have you seen this art history analysis of Leonardo's Last Supper? It's by SmartHistory: https://youtu.be/XCg7o4onjxs?feature=shared
Great read
Both paintings I believe are trying to convey different aspects of the Last Supper as you pointed out. Although I believe La Touche's painting is "better" insofar as it better reflects the Christian remembrance of the Last Supper, there is more of a mysticism surrounding Christ in La Touche's. He is in the center and there is a light surrounding him. Da Vinci's Christ lacks those elements and when you consider the background, he seems to blend in with it like the other apostles.
This line of thinking is one of the reasons why modern art has degenerated to the point it has today. To be led by feelings, pretty colours, and ambiguity which allows the viewer to inject their own bias, as opposed to learning something new.
You are using faults in the painters ability or in in this work in particular as pros. To be frank the draughtsmanship in Le Louche's painting is very poor, the faces are ugly block abstractions that look dead and have zero charm, the hands have these creepy undefined fingers with broken wrists. Let alone the complete blurred nature of the painting; the blurring of edges of less important parts can be good to emphasise the focus of a painting, which is crucial to great paintings, as seen in Velasquez's work. Hence the ethos that often it is that which you leave out which is more important than that you put in. However this isn't done with any of the finesse seen in Velazquez.
But this desiring of the blurry and carrying thoughts like 'but it is executed with such perfection in perspective that this becomes a focus of the painting itself.' Like this idea you can't have beautiful technique and beautiful story telling is haughty to see. As it is this which led to the ever growing blurriness, deadness and ugliness we see in Millet, Cezanne, Picasso, Pollock and so on, as we see art seriously decaying from around 1850 onwards.
The important point is to separate narrative and ideas that a painting may give you, from the quality of the painting itself. To you maybe the narrative and idea of focusing on the Eucharist (which is a lovely focus to have) makes Le Touche's better, as it speaks to you more (through the holy spirit). But this isn't the qualifier for a good painting or not, it's the equivalent of preferring a painting of a tiger over a painting of a lion, simply because you like tigers more than lions. As opposed to evaluating which is the better painting due to composition, draughtsmanship, story telling, light effects and so on. So the correct response to this later Painting isn't Touché, but passe.
Both are beautiful, it is hard to pick a favorite. Thank you for bringing the LaTouche version to my attention, I’d never seen it before and I am impressed with its movement and beauty.
Beautiful, other one I love is Dali’s version
Technically Leonardo is better, but spiritually Gaston's is better.
I prefer Da Vinci's except for the building they are located in. It looks cold, modern, not of the era.
Great pictorial analysis, although as a Traditional Catholic I reject the theological idea that the last supper is just a memory. Instead embracing the doctrine of transubstantiation.
How do memories work? Do you remember them as perfect movies with all the details? Or is it more fuzzy? I was impressed by La Touche's painting because of how close it actually sticks to the Trad Catholic idea of transubstantiation because if you'll notice, the clearest thing in the picture is the chalice containing the blood. This is because, as far as I understand, according to the Catholic idea, the holy communion is how everything else matters and is remembered as well.
Thank you for replying Megha.
How do memories work? Do you remember them as perfect movies with all the details? Or is it more fuzzy?
Some I remember as documentaries, some as dreams, it depends.
In the case of the painting, I love La Touche's depiction of the First Mass (The last supper), precisely because of how artistically-catholic it is. Since La Touche was French, odds are that he was a Traditional Catholic as well.
The doctrine of transubstation states that the wine transforms into the blood of Christ, which is very aptly represented by Mr. Gaston.
When I read this section on your article: "The Last Supper is a story in the Bible in which Jesus established the Holy Communion. He told his disciples that he would be betrayed and die but that by drinking wine and eating bread, they could remember the sacrifice he was about to make for them. " I understood it as you refering to the Last Supper being a ritual for remembrance, which is the Lutheran position.
Perhaps I misunderstood your own position, but is not yet clear if you embrace more the Lutheran symbolism or the Trad Cath Position (at least with regards to the interpretation of this art piece).
If memory serves, your public religious position is neither protestant nor Catholic, and therefore, I could get wrong your words since I lack some background regarding your cultural perceptions of western religious themes.
It's interesting, I have grown up in western culture, surrounded by western literature and art, which requires a thorough understanding of Christianity and more specifically Catholicism, to appreciate. This is why I've had to kind of educate myself on the religion as much as I can if I ever want to write seriously about Western Art. Many postmodernist secular art writers will not understand the importance of Catholicism as the foundation for Western Art and that's why I think they get so much wrong about it.
As an art historian myself, I can attest that it's useful to know some basic facts about Christianity and the Bible in order to understand and appreciate Western art. It would be like watching Disney's Hercules without knowing anything about Greek mythology!
Yes, the Catholic mindset and framework is what influenced Europe's art the most. La Touche's is a great example of this precisely for the reasons you mentioned in your article, meaning, representing the spiritual dimension of the Sacramental Rite, as opposed as just a material realistic take.
As an additional take, you don't see much protestant art depicting Jesus Christ because they also rejected the idea of having religious images, which ensured that stunning Christian art was mostly done by Catholics.
Protestants self-excluded from that conversation.