Depends on which account you lean towards. Some claim he finished it in France. If so then it can carry that description. Otherwise an Italian painter painting it fully in Italy for a Frenchman is still an italian painting. The commissioner of the painting no more dictates its origin than the purchase of the Ferrari
Side note. An artists nationality at times has mattered more than their name. That is of course a bygone time, but there was a time when certain curators and owners valued it as such
I think most art historians with disagree with the notion of ignoring provenance in artwork and only focusing on "origin." Regardless, if you would prefer the language that he was utilizing paintings owned by the French, that still excludes The Last Supper and includes this painting.
Thought this worth mentioning also ~ In 1460, Count Gaspare Vimercati, the commander of Sforza’s troops, gave the Dominican priests of the convent of Sant’Apollonia in Pavia a piece of land in Milan. Here there were two modest buildings: one used to house Vimercati’s troops, and the other a chapel that was decorated on the inside with a fresco of Our Lady of Graces, the Virgin Mary. The priests wanted to build a church and a convent there and honour her by naming it Santa Maria delle Grazie. So, in 1463, they began constructing the building, under the guidance of Guiniforte Solari . The main parts of the convent were completed in 1469, whereas the church was finished in 1482... ...The rooms of the Chapter House and the Locutory, which is a parlour, face out onto the eastern side of the Cloister, whereas to the north there is the library. It was built by Solari, who modelled it on the library at the Dominican Convent of San Marco in Florence, which was built by Michelozzo di Bartolomeo. The western side of the convent, on the other hand, is where the refectory is still located today. A picture of the refectory 1895 The mural protected by scaffolding during WW2 air raids. The church was heavily damaged.
Leo's use of symmetry and (somewhat subliminal) nods to numerology are cool aspects of of the work. The thought that went into these ancient pieces is unrivaled today.
So the Last Supper Conspiracy went the way of every other right wing conspiracy know to man? Turned out to be a manufactured crisis. Next I bet you will try to tell me that Democrats are not aborting babies after they are born!
So no answer? Because i didn't question anyone's experience or knowledge like you like to do. Regardless, I will admit that the intent MAY not be the last supper, but I will remain unconvinced. Jolly claiming he wanted a message of the right to not worship gives some religious overtone. The set up of the "table" is still troubling to me. But regardless I am willing to walk away with a less sure position then I started while remaining skeptical. No reason to beat this horse to a skeletal powder.
So I didn’t read the last 10 pages of deep-dives into the history of specific types of art, but is there an inference that people shouldn’t make the logical connection between the two below? A painting that is literally one of the most recognizable in the world? Including a wearing of a “halo” for the central character? And the person who choreographed this didn’t catch it?
I don't see Jesus wearing a halo in the second image, but I think the halo being referred to in the first pic is the woman in the blue dress? Could she have represented a Greek Goddess? Halo (religious iconography) - Wikipedia A halo (from Ancient Greek ἅλως (hálōs) 'threshing floor, disk';[1][2] also called a nimbus, aureole, glory, or gloriole (Latin: gloriola, lit. 'little glory') is a crown of light rays, circle or disk of light[3] that surrounds a person in works of art. The halo occurs in the iconography of many religions to indicate holy or sacred figures, and has at various periods also been used in images of rulers and heroes. In the religious art of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism (among other religions), sacred persons may be depicted with a halo in the form of a circular glow, or flames in Asian art, around the head or around the whole body—this last form is often called a mandorla. Halos may be shown as almost any colour or combination of colours, but are most often depicted as golden, yellow or white (when representing light) or as red (when representing flames). Depending on how you define a halo, the earliest extant artistic depictions of halos were in Egypt [4] or Iran. **** Homer describes a more-than-natural light around the heads of heroes in battle.[6] Depictions of Perseus in the act of slaying Medusa, with lines radiating from his head, appear on a white-ground toiletry box and on a slightly later red-figured vase in the style of Polygnotos, c. 450–30 BC.[7] On painted wares from south Italy, radiant lines or simple haloes appear on a range of mythic figures: Lyssa, a personification of madness; a sphinx; a sea demon; and Thetis, the sea-nymph who was mother to Achilles.[8] The Colossus of Rhodes was a statue of the sun-god Helios and had his usual radiate crown (copied for the Statue of Liberty). Hellenistic rulers are often shown wearing radiate crowns that seem clearly to imitate this effect.[9]
I thought much of the opening ceremony was over the top, in your face. Damn threesome skit with 2 gay guys and a girl. C’mon man maybe diversity amongst dancers is limited, Then I took a nap and was over it.
So long story short, halos are frequently used in artistic portrayals to represent divinity. And very common in western cultures those specific with Christianity or biblical references. many Christians and non Christians would make the connection between the two scenes in post 310 in a real-time 4 second viewing based on their knowledge of one of the most famous paintings in the world. (And before they heard all the political back and forth). Which imo, it’s more than just “the far right”, to make that connection. also imo, it would more quickly resonate with practicing Christians as the painting has more meaning for them. Even Christians who might be novices literally analyze the painting.
That is just one frozen image … the scene starts focused just on the center lady, zooms out to show she has 20 - 25 friends with her who are dancing and posing, then a fashion show starts with models strutting down the runway in front of them (i.e., it’s not a table) …. If you freeze it at one right moment, when she has about 6 people on each side, it does resemble the painting … but that seems to be purely coincidental, not some visual they even lingered on in the broadcast, but that’s the image that got passed around to stir up the controversy … pretty much everyone involved, including the blue man, has spoken out. The blue man says he is a Christian, and after watching it for himself on replay, doesn’t understand what the fuss is about, but says he sorry if anyone was offended …
I can understand Western viewers making a connection with Christianity. I also wonder how much of a role the initial articles and posts influenced perceptions. I saw many that seemed to state as a fact that it was intended as a parody or mockery of the Last Supper, and I wouldn't be surprised if many assumed that to be true before hearing from the creators and performers or considering whether there might be other explanations or motives, to include possible connections with Ancient Greece.
Well, despite any post event representations by some involved in the production of the exhibit (which may or may not be accurate, honest, and/or sincere), we don't know for a fact the real intention the "creators and performers". Therefore, no one on this message board can say what the "creators and performers" intended the exhibit to represent and what they hoped to accomplish with the exhibit, if anything. What some may conclude with some degree of confidence is .... the "creators and performers" seemingly lacked discernment and discretion when creating and performing the at issue exhibit. And if we're to consider the exhibit to be art .... we are all free to decide what it represents and means to us. I don't believe a non- or anti-Christian has any basis for instructing a Christian on how to react to the exhibit. Similarly, if a non- or anti-Christian wants to believe the exhibit is completely unrelated to the Last Supper, then they have the God given right to believe that.
Yeah, people should have the right to believe whatever they want about it. I've even seen a range of varying takes among Christians.
That segment made me laugh. Even if it was a straight couple hitting on each other and then running to the library to make out it would have been odd. Dont worry. Wait till you see plans for 2028 Los Angeles!
