Is Analyzing Art Superfluous? What About the Painting The Last Supper?

Some people believe that avidly criticizing art is unnecessary. Those people may find themselves embracing other aesthetic forms, such as music or dance. However, I find it offensive and irreverent for someone to criticize someone else for possessing a different passion or interest. Analyzing art is an individual process and people should not be disparaged for being “nit-picky,” as Shelley Esaak refers to it as. Shelley Esaak’s satirical blog addresses the controversy over Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.

The blog sarcastically attempts to explain why the controversial figure in Leonardo’s, The Last Supper is not Mary Magdalene, but a male disciple. She does not even address why some people would consider the figure to Jesus’ right a female, even though the figure has female qualities. Instead, Esaak attacks those people that may look more into a painting that what is transcribed in a paragraph to the right of the painting. A critique can effectively state their opinion without offending or judging other people.

Shelley Esaak references the Biblical account of Mary Magdalene at the last supper. She explains that Mary was the only person there to wipe the disciples’ feet, which she refers to as a minor task. This is no minor task! Wiping and washing feet symbolized much more in Biblical times than it would today. However, as I scanned through the bible, I could not find concrete evidence that Magdalene attended the last supper. Instead, I read that Jesus was the one who washed his fellow disciples’ feet.

If Mary was truly at the last supper, I believe it is completely relevant for people to question if Leonardo painted a questionable figure to resemble her. Even if he painted such a figure, that does not mean that he thought she was at the table. He could have painted the figure to spark interest and controversy. The best art is controversial.

Esaak admits that Leonardo was been known for “stirring the pot” every now and then, but “was not stupid.” The fact that Da Vinci painted a questionable figure with feminine traits does not question stupidity at all. It is clearly evident that the figure resembles a female.

For one, the questionable figure possesses a lighter complexion than the other disciples, which is referred to as high key. The other disciples possess defined and dark facial ascents. The painter accomplished this look by using a method called hatching. To address color, the questionable figure wears bears a pink toga while the remaining disciples wear more masculine attire. The disciple’s hand placement on the figure sparks curiosity. Leonardo does a great job of making the hand seem to lightly graze on the figure’s shoulder. The figure’s face direction towards the touch appears feminine. Jesus obtains the other disciples’ attention, except for the figure to his right, the figure possessing the feminine qualities. The fact that the figure chooses not to look towards Jesus may symbolize that the figure at the table is unlike the other disciples.

I think it is very debatable that Leonardo painted this figure to resemble Mary Magdalene. I am not even addressing whether Mary sat at the table or not. I just find it a bit absurd that Shelley Esaak would dismiss the theory altogether. Analyzing art is interesting and thought provoking but Esaak feels otherwise.

The support that Shelley Esaak uses is weak. One of her main points is that Leonardo is known for painting and drawing effeminate-looking males. If this is so, why did he not paint all of them all feminine or a few? Why one? Just because he gave the figure painted in Angel in the Flesh feminine qualities does not mean he randomly makes men look like females.

Shelley Esaak. “Is that John or mary Magdalene in the Last Super? About: Art History. http://arthistory.about.com/cs/last_supper/f/john_v_mary.htm