Simply "Da Vinci"

For more than a half-century one man has managed to maintain his relevance through his immesurable genius. Everything he touched, brushed, sketched, or chiseled remains, 600 years later, the gold standard for expression. His visions and dreams reflected the intellectual capacity of someone a thousand years ahead of his time, misunderstood and wildly eccentric, there will never be another da Vinci. Timless works of art flowed from whatever delicate instument he used as if it were directly connected to his brain. Color, shading, and texture were all so vividly etched in every stroke of his brush that he was one of the few artists ever considered to be commissioned by the Roman Catholic church. Many of his pictures still represent the iconic images of the Bible’s most holy scenes for people all over the world. Outside of his personal cult however, not everybody is complete supporter of da Vinci. While his contributions both artistically, technologically, and politically are impressive, some feel that parts of his portfolio reached fame only because they are a “da Vinci.” In “Leonardo’s Ghost,” Trevor Winkfield, argues this very point.

“The Last Supper” is arguably the most famous of da Vinci’s paintings. The mysteries involved with the identity of who is sitting at the table, the body language displayed, and the layout of the painting have grabbed it a lot of attention. Compared to his earlier paintings though it is unusually bland. The size of the painting is one cause of this. The detail da Vinci infused into his work caused “paintings the size of “Adoration of The Magi” to take 4 years to complete” and it is a fraction of the size (Winkfield). Scientists calculated that if he had gone at his “typical pace he would have been painting for around 370 years” (Winkfield). Along with size, wear and tear have deteriorated the quality of the painting far beyond restorable means, leaving the quality closer to an ameatures watercolor and less like the holy depiction of Christ at his final meal. The author argues that in pristine condition the painting may have been a better piece but, sadly, it’s not. Special high-tech filters and restorations have if anything degraded the piece even farther, squandering efforts to hold on to what he calls “lost cause” (Winkfield). In the author’s urges to let go of “The Last Supper” he encourages people to look outside of da Vinci to other paintings. Other artists from the same time period created far more brilliant, better-preserved, paintings of “The Last Supper” and are overlooked because “they” are not da Vinci. It becomes evident that the “Ghost” he refers to in his title is in actuality “The Last Supper” and that it is far over due to be put to sleep.

It is not often that people try to take a shot at someone as deified as da Vinci, a man who to some people is literally a god. However, Winkfield does bring up some valuable points. I agree with the assertions that da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” is not as good as his previous works. Time has corroded it’s delicate fabric and irreversibly damaged the “highly coveted unknown mixtures of oil and water-based paints” (Winkfield). The skill that it did take to create though should not be so easily dismissed. In everyone of da Vinci’s pieces, created before or after “The Last Supper,” there is an unmistakable presence that fills the room housing one of his paintings. This is where I disagree with Winkfield, “The Las Supper” should be revered still, it is a da Vinci and it still is a piece of art created specifically for largest political figure of his time period, the Roman Catholic Church. The painting has so much historical value and disguised beauty that to suggest it being overrated is borderline blasphemy. On sheer value alone “The Last Supper” should be housed securely in the greatest of museums, when you add the fact that it was painted with techniques still unknown to painters and that damaged it still strikes people so deeply it is more than deserving of a detour if you happen to be in Milan.