I’m most of the way through “The Da Vinci Code” and I read the part where they disect “The Last Supper”.
Is that a woman to Jesus’ right? If no/yes is there even legitimate debate over it?
The “throat slashing” gesture made in front of her neck. . .would an art historian/critic consider that a throat slash (as the author of the book does) or something else? Did Da Vinci and others use that in their paintings to signify something in particular?
Sorry if this has been asked before. I didn’t go into another da vinci code thread because of the spoiler warning.
I’m really just asking about those interpretations of the painting.
It’s St. John, the Beloved Disciple. (See John 13:23ff.)
Tradition held him to be the youngest of the disciples, in or barely out of his teens, and to have a special place in Jesus’s heart. DaVinci portrayed him as a beautiful, long-haired young man, for reasons not hard to figure out if you know anything about DaVinci’s sexuality.
The particular moment of the scene is where Jesus has just said, “One of you will betray me.” All the apostles are portrayed reacting to this – the guy two over from John is leaning forward intently and pointing at Jesus, apparently coincidentally in front of John’s throat.
There is no legitimate debate over this. There is one guy who claims this and Dan Brown latched onto him. But the rest of the art world is just shaking its head in wonder.
That’s weird. I am reading the DaVinci code too and was going to ask this myself. It sure looks like a woman to me. Maybe art historians are just a little too sure of themselves to see the obvious.
Polycarp – he also makes reference to the “fact” that Matt/Mark/Luke/John are the gospels that downplayed the significance of Mary Magdelene in Jesus’ life, and that many more gospels that exist weren’t included in the bible.
So that passage from the book of John isn’t going to convince anyone on “Dan Brown’s side” (not saying I’m one of them).
He does raise some intriguing points in the book and I wonder as I read how many of them are (like Exapno suggests) a single crack-pot saying them, or the subject of actual debate.
Did you notice the knife on the left side? There’s a guy with his hands up like “What’s this?” and right in front of him is a hand with a knife. The hand doesn’t belong to anyone else in the painting.
And I think it IS a woman. Notice how Jesus has a red T-shirt and a blue superman cape, and the chick has a blue t-shirt and a red superman cape? (or is it the other way around?) They’re totally together.
Dan Brown writes fiction, and is very good at manipulating historical fact. Angels and Demons, the book before Da Vinci, has alot of very convincing illuminati information, all of which can be found on the web and all of which is probably bull. His next book will be at least partially set in Washington, D.C. and will go on and on, I am sure, about the alleged masonic symbols hidden throughout the city.
I find Dan Brown’s research skills laughable. I couldn’t finish Angels and Demons, the book mentioned by dauerbach, because the Illuminati stuff in it was old hat when Wilson & Shea parodied it in the 70s, not to mention his ludicrous handling of the CERN facility.
Don’t take anything Mr. Brown says seriously. He writes pulp fiction that poorly informed book reviewers laud for its so-called attention to detail. There is no woman in The Last Supper.
I a recent religious special on TV, this was specifically debated. True, John was very young, and might have resembled a female at that point. But, many others claim that person to be Mary Magdelene. A lot of people believe that DaVinci purposely left that person “vague”, to remain open for interpretation.
What I find amusing is that the act of throwing spilt salt over your shoulder is believed to have come from this very painting. In front of Judas, and pointing at him, is a toppled salt shaker.
Apparently Da Vinci did a painting of John the Baptist that looked rather feminized. Knowing that, it gives more crendence that the person next to Jesus was likely John.
If it’s supposed to be Mary, then where the hell is John the Beloved? He certainly wouldn’t have missed dinner!
John the Beloved is often portrayed as very young and fresh, like a maiden.
DaVinci broke quite a few taboos in his Supper (like putting Judas on the same side of the table as Christ, a huge no-no and had never been done before) but the concensus for the last few hundred years is that the figure is JtB.
Regarding DBrown & the painting in GQ it is important to keep in mind exactly what Leonardo actually painted is very debatable (& the debate is constant).
Narrowing in on any single detail in the painting and claiming Leonardo did this is nearly impossible – let alone claiming Leonardo “meant this”
-----------Quote----------------
The painting has also been subject to much attention due to the number of restorations it has had to face since its completion in the fifteenth century. … The painting that remains so influential has been frequently referred to as “repainted”, not “restored”. However, restoration has been an ongoing reality with this masterpiece due to unprecedented manner in which Leonardo painted it. Although restoration may have altered Leonardo’s painting to a degree, it has prolonged the life of this painting for future generations to appreciate and view.
---------Quote------------ http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~lbianco/project/home.html
