Translator: Denise RQ Reviewer: Robert Deliman
Let's begin,
we'll start with the Last Supper, not too far from here.
The refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie,
obviously, we won't go into The Da Vinci Code
nor the actual Last Supper but rather the imagery,
that is, what the image is.
I'll illustrate the point by looking at the imagery of the past.
This is the first image of the Last Supper, done in fresco,
completely different from what we have here in Milan,
perhaps the first image tied to the subject,
which is just one example.
This one here is a manuscript,
you see, it's a flat frame, there's no perspective,
Judas is at the other side of the table,
so, we have a manuscript right in the year 1,000.
A few centuries have gone by since then.
Here's the same thing, more or less, highlighting Christ and Judas,
in this flattening set of the work.
This one is extraordinary, Chartres' stained glass window,
in which we see Judas again on the outside, but John,
evangelically, leaning upon Christ's side.
See how the imagination of the same evangelical event evolves.
This one is by Giotto.
Here Giotto is already modifying, and thus imagining, the text in a new way.
We see again John leaning on Christ, and Judas bending down.
Pretty simple here.
So we are looking at the past not so long ago.
This is Duccio.
Apart from the difference in the halos, this is a classic structure, let's say,
in that it's always represented more or less in the same style.
Here we start to change.
We're getting closer to the definitive Last Supper.
We're in the great perspective of the Renaissance,
Andrea Del Castagno highlights precisely Judas, still in the old medieval way,
with John alongside Christ,
but in the extraordinary perspective of the Renaissance,
in a space full of gems and marbles.
Here we are at the Sistine Chapel,
in such splendor, not only in terms of place,
but in terms of ideas of space,
yet based on ancient motifs,
like the arrangement of the apostles.
Here on the other hand, we are at the object of our desire,
which is a thing we are all working on together,
because everyone, in the image, in the idea,
that one may have - let's start from this -
this image may be used
- though a different one could have easily been used in its place.
We're in Milan, let's use a Milanese masterpiece.
It's the same thing.
Here, two interesting things are happening
- well, a lot is happening - but anyway: the use of space.
Leonardo da Vinci created an accelerated perspective,
a 3-D effect never before used. It is magnificent.
Imagine a visitor at the beginning of the 16th century,
looking at this infinity, whose magnitude is rendered
by those three windows, towards the Infinite.
Frances I, upon seeing it, said, "I'm going to take it home with me."
No, hold on a second. And especially the theme.
That is to say, it doesn't show everything that happened in that most holy of nights,
but, in the refectory where the Dominicans ate each day,
there is an echo of Christ's words,
"One of you is betraying me, is going to betray me."
And there is theatricality.
Look at the hands, look at this support,
look at everything that's happening.
It's a little unsettling
to see this image each time you eat, that evokes something else.
What happened between 1498 and now?
Here, nothing.
We're at the beginning, at a latitude - I mean, it's important to know!
I mean, because obviously I brought examples that aren't too -
how should I put it, self-referential, for this demonstration.
But up north, it hadn't arrived yet.
There was no Internet
But there was Dürer, who met Leonardo shortly after.
Obviously, he was one of the greats, it's not that he copies Da Vinci,
but he already gains movement, an opening, a perspective.
Here Albain, especially with the hands, and especially with these three openings,
obviously must have seen something.
He reinterprets it.
Look how it is developed on a mental level of imagery
throughout the centuries.
Kind of the job we're working on now.
I'll never get it going - oh, here - a fairly straightforward reference.
Everyone can find details because everyone needs to--
Here we're in the 1520s.
- Look at the hands, here on the right, - the structure, the three openings.
Obviously different, yes, but there is a reference there, an echo.
This is early Titian,
and it has that opening, but a fairly different one.
A more mature Titian, strikingly similar.
He died in 1576, but look at the movement, the hands.
John there, but Judas with the others anyway;
we are all traitors.
We cannot avoid this oppressive image from the refectory of Holy Mary of Grace.
Decide for yourselves, look at the openings in the back
I don't know, I'd say a bit of a copycat.
I didn't mean for that to be funny, but okay.
Rubens, obviously another of the greats,
here, I chose this painting to say,
you know very well, but, as if to say, "I'll take care of it."
That seems appropriate.
(Laughter)
This here is - I wanted to move on to a piece from Paris -
(Laughter)
Philippe Di Champaigne, one of my favourite artists,
there are even the active and passive folds
in the ironed tablecloth of the Last Supper; well done.
I mean, fantastic.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
Tiepolo, on the other hand, obviously,
there's that opening in the sense of space, of fellowship,
but obviously we can say that
there are aspects similar to the Last Supper,
but between the lines. This is not the place for -
Here we're in the second half of the 19th century
They'd like to -
This is St Petersburg; The Russians wanted to make their own image
from an Orthodox evangelical text,
and thus distance themselves completely from da Vinci's Last Supper.
And thus I've brought a counter example which can't hurt.
This is Nolde. There's very little of the Last Supper.
There is a clear desire to break from classical tradition,
even if a certain convivial sense remains.
Obviously it would have been rather daring though.
So the point isn't to find it everywhere.
Wait a second. There's a reason for them.
This is Spencer, who has nothing to do with anything
Here is John back on the rib cage of Jesus
but there is that opening, the sense of the table
and not the break from Judas.
By now this prototype has entered modern day usage,
in contemporary use; it infects it.
It can't be avoided.
Dalì who seems to be there, but there's - it's completely different,
- this sense of of the Eucharist - that da Vinci didn't want to give;
but there's a sense of the infinite.
Obviously Dali is always a little - a little over the top,
But he certainly had a feel for this.
This is interesting: it is precise.
This is Buffet, in the Vatican Museum,
it is no more and no less that a memory.
He didn't want to imitate da Vinci, he imitated earlier works:
with Judas, whose name appears above,
on this side of the table like at Chartes,
like in the manuscripts we saw earlier.
This here is a gift, this is Buñuel,
in the film that won the 1961 Cannes Festival,
apropos the recent pomp along la Croisette,
take a look, how it imitates exactly,
it's a celebration of Leonardo's Last Supper.
Even art, another kind of art, can't do without it.
It's the Last Supper without the diners.
This is an acrylic which demonstrates clearly
that Leonardo has now become the father whose influence can't be shaken off.
Warrol dedicates to Leonardo's Last Supper truly a remarkable series, look at this,
photographic-like studies and serigraphs on canvas.
Paterson changes it up completely, real innovation: a wall with names.
(Laugher)
Interesting, obviously I don't think that there's a great deal of similarity,
but we don't want to find it at all costs.
(Applause)
This one, which is somewhat reverent,
is a Last Supper which seems to show no similarities,
but in fact has many: many by way of the separation of the apostles,
and by the three openings.
It's useless, even if we're in some corner of a New York suburb,
it still reminds us, echoing the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie.
He could have at least done two of them, so they're not all the same!
Three even!
This is the last one that I'm going to show you.
It's an advert which is obviously desecrating,
as it so clearly depicts the Last Supper
and so it was naturally banned in Italy being considered blasphemy
and also because it advertised French tights.
(Laughter)
Very well.
(Applause)
So there we are.
We've started the ball rolling, you've seen a little - now you can play
at home with your friends, with some figurines
and opening the art history books.
Obviously this is just one motivation, today we've done the Last Supper,
but we could have done anything.
It's a way of telling you various things:
one of which, in a banal way, is that the new
is readable only in its entirety if read with the old,
and so this is what we must do.
In fact, we must go not only into the recent, but also the distant past,
to be able to really sit back and relax
having taken the whole work in its entirety.
Another interesting topic is that of the "archetypes".
Jung dealt with it to some extent.
That is, we all live archetypes, inside of us,
within our [pnuema, in our soul
we have archetypes, of concepts and images,
whether we are aware of them or not.
Obviously, archetypes are born of myth.
But I'm speaking about imaginary archetypes,
those involved in the creation of new concepts and imagery.
The Last supper is a masterpiece not just for its virtuosity,
for who made it, for its physiognomy,
for all that's been written about it,
but because it's an archetype, it seduces,
it's an energy which has to be dealt with;
it's a father and a grandfather who echo through all creators,
but not just creators of art, but also we who take in their work.
The problem, with a world which is so full of images,
is that it's difficult to create new archetypes for the future,
as obviously they have already been made,
but nevertheless we can study, reflecting on the old ones,
to understand where to place ourselves.
Because creating archetypes, is to create new languages,
new ways of communicating.
A new sense of mental spatiality, of interior freedom.
With the Last Supper we don't see an image fixed on a wall,
but an energy, a story, poetry.
One last thing.
And here, I really am adding grist to the mill, honestly.
We talk a lot about contemporariness.
We've seen how useful it is for the future,
understanding the past.
It's almost banal, I'm telling you.
However, I like to think that these pictures,
these masterpieces, these unique images
which aren't fleeting like the Internet, like YouTube,
but are permanent, and fixed, help to enrich us.
As Simone Weil, a great 20th century philosopher once said,
"The beauty of those images erodes mediocrity, ugliness."
Another author, from the 19th century, said,
"I don't go to museums to know the old masters,
but to better know myself."
There it is, the message is not to start from the Last Supper and do this or that.
The message is these images help us today,
to live, to overcome difficulty, to go to a museum
and stand for half an hour in front of a great painting,
with the energy of its shapes and colours,
with a wisdom that helps us live the present.
And perhaps with our soul more at ease, we will see the future.
(Applause)