Last week I was in Kolkata, the city which I love for its heritage. In fact I lived there for nearly seven years and the charm of Calcutta grew on me! (I prefer to call it Calcutta and not Kolkata!) I used to take pictures of various things while I was there. This time when I went there from Mumbai, I had a Sunday with me - the entire day to be spent to my liking!
I have read Dan Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’ few years back and was very much convinced by the arguments put forward by him in that novel.
I went to St. John’s church and took some pictures. Since I went there a little late there was no one and the church was open. So I went inside the church to take the picture of ‘Last Supper’ painting which is hanging inside the church. As I wanted I was able to take a good picture and came to my Hotel Hindustan International happily.
This is the restored version of great work of German neo-classical painter Johann Zoffany hanging on the walls of St. John’s church in Kolkata. This painting is believed to have been painted in 1787.
While I was processing my picture I noticed something striking in the picture which was very different from the original Last supper painting of Leonardo Da Vinci’s.
Take a look at both the pictures and I am sure you will notice the difference, especially if you have read Da Vinci Code!
‘The Last Supper’ - original painting of Leonardo Da Vinci.
'The Last Supper' by German neo-classical painter Johann Zoffany which is in St. John’s Church, Calcutta.
Some points which come to my mind:
In this painting the lady is seated to the left side of Jesus, in the original painting she is to the right of Jesus Christ.
Unlike the original painting in which Mary is leaning on to Saint Peter - here she is leaning on the shoulder of Jesus Christ.
This person is definitely a female and not an effeminate man as generally claimed of Apostle John. (Take a look at the close up of this person!)
Jesus and this person are wearing totally different coloured dresses. In the original painting Jesus is in red robe and blue cloak, Mary Magdalene in a blue robe and red cloak, mirror image of each other!
All these points go in favour of Daniel Brown’s The Da Vinci Code?
Finally, I would like to mention here what Sigmund Freud once said about paintings - “The artist should not be held responsible for what subsequently happens to his works”.
The picture of the original painting was taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DaVinci_LastSupper_high_res_2_nowatmrk.jpg
4 comments:
This is classical case of creative duplication of originals! he devaitions should be deemed to be other possibilities,features which the ARTIST himself could have opted for!
The "last Supper' may of different compositions!What is important is "eyes of the beholder"
Thanks for your criticla analysis.We are calcuttans are now veru much busy with make over of the city to create a second LONDON- no tme to think about mistaken duplication of classical art.
SKC
That is a good analysis Gopalan, would have even known about such things.
I also like Calcutta , have stayed their for about 3yrs.
Awesome observations!Totally in agreement.
John wasn't "effeminate man." The tradition was that eh was extremely young, his beard wasn't growing yet.Some traditions say he was 13 or so, and he is often depicted as leaning on Jesus' shoulder, or sleeping.This is a common depiction, also in Florentine art depiction of very young men were so that for today's eyes they look like there is a woman, but the robes are not female, they are dressed like males.This is of course confusing, but it was so common, that even non-religious paintings or, sculptures where the subject is confirmed male in documentation, they still look very feminine. Are you familiar for ex. with David by Donatello for example? By the way, I think John looks here boyish, not female.But I know, this is a source of confusion, but art historians can show a lot of secular subjects from Florentine school of art where young males look like females. I hope I didn't spoil anything.Sometimes our observations are not right. Sometimes we need to take facts from art history into account.
Post a Comment