5 ms·

The Lost Last Supper

15 points by prismatic 6y ago

rendall 6y ago
In the art school I went to for undergrad, we learnt quickly not to make such explanations as "... I saw that I had lots of space, so I could add a great deal". Instructors preferred explanations that indicated intent and deliberation. It's nice to see that at least one Rennaissance Old Master had a casual attitude about this.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  So, no one expects the Art School and/or Venetian Inquisitions either?
- simonh 6y ago
  It's hard to know to what extent his answers came from a genuine casual attitude, as against an attempt to play dumb in order to avoid potentially very serious consequences. I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing by putting German mercenaries and Muslims in the painting and that it had little to do simply with a technical infraction of the rules of the Council of Trent.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Whatever his original intentions were, we can be 100% sure his responses to interrogators were deliberate and not causual. As in, it is sort of high stress situation in which your words matter, adrenalin flows and you know it. If the drawing was causual however, I think he would rather repaint it then just change name. Changing name wink wink toward danger suggest the original drawing matter to you.
michaelsbradley 6y ago
July 1573 was little more than a year out from the death of Pope Pius V, whose birth name was Antonio Ghislieri and who took the name Michele when he entered the Dominican Order at age 14 (ordained a priest in that Order about 10 years later). Note the blog post relates that "[Paolo Veronese] had been commissioned by the Dominicans to make a particularly large painting for the refectory of their monastery." When elected as the Bishop of Rome, Pius V took on a reform of monumental scope, not lacking much sternness: the papacy itself over many recent decades had been occupied by men more of overt excesses and opulence than of other qualities good or ill. The cleanup efforts continued at pace long after his death across the whole of the western Catholic Church. That's a bit of context for the events in 1573 involving Paolo Veronese, fair or unfair. I think it would be interesting to learn more of the back story of his artistic direction for that particular commission. In any case, in the atmosphere of 1573 (vs. say the High Renaissance that ended about 50 years earlier), in a Dominican monastery no less, I don't think it's shocking that the painting could have been suspected to be impious or irreligious.

15 points by prismatic 6y ago

In the art school I went to for undergrad, we learnt quickly not to make such explanations as "... I saw that I had lots of space, so I could add a great deal". Instructors preferred explanations that indicated intent and deliberation. It's nice to see that at least one Rennaissance Old Master had a casual attitude about this.

baryphonic 6y ago
So, no one expects the Art School and/or Venetian Inquisitions either?
simonh 6y ago
It's hard to know to what extent his answers came from a genuine casual attitude, as against an attempt to play dumb in order to avoid potentially very serious consequences. I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing by putting German mercenaries and Muslims in the painting and that it had little to do simply with a technical infraction of the rules of the Council of Trent.
- watwut 6y ago
  Whatever his original intentions were, we can be 100% sure his responses to interrogators were deliberate and not causual. As in, it is sort of high stress situation in which your words matter, adrenalin flows and you know it. If the drawing was causual however, I think he would rather repaint it then just change name. Changing name wink wink toward danger suggest the original drawing matter to you.

michaelsbradley 6y ago

July 1573 was little more than a year out from the death of Pope Pius V, whose birth name was Antonio Ghislieri and who took the name Michele when he entered the Dominican Order at age 14 (ordained a priest in that Order about 10 years later). Note the blog post relates that "[Paolo Veronese] had been commissioned by the Dominicans to make a particularly large painting for the refectory of their monastery." When elected as the Bishop of Rome, Pius V took on a reform of monumental scope, not lacking much sternness: the papacy itself over many recent decades had been occupied by men more of overt excesses and opulence than of other qualities good or ill. The cleanup efforts continued at pace long after his death across the whole of the western Catholic Church. That's a bit of context for the events in 1573 involving Paolo Veronese, fair or unfair. I think it would be interesting to learn more of the back story of his artistic direction for that particular commission. In any case, in the atmosphere of 1573 (vs. say the High Renaissance that ended about 50 years earlier), in a Dominican monastery no less, I don't think it's shocking that the painting could have been suspected to be impious or irreligious.