Last visit: January 2022
My rating: 7/10
Visit duration: One hour
Website: https://cenacolovinciano.org/
The Last Supper, also known as the Cenacolo Vinciano, is one of the most celebrated works in art history and a cornerstone of Renaissance painting. Created between 1494 and 1498 at the commission of Ludovico Sforza, the painting occupies the north wall of the refectory of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. This masterpiece not only marks an evolution in the representation of sacred narratives but also serves as a testament to Leonardo's innovative approach to painting and visual composition.
Historical Context and Commission of Leonardo’s Last Supper
The Last Supper by Leonardo, also known as the Cenacolo Vinciano, is one of the most celebrated works in art history and a cornerstone of Renaissance painting. Created between 1494 and 1498 at the commission of Ludovico Sforza, the painting occupies the north wall of the refectory of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. This masterpiece not only marks an evolution in the representation of sacred narratives but also serves as a testament to Leonardo's innovative approach to painting and visual composition.
The Last Supper was conceived at a crucial moment in Leonardo da Vinci’s career. After spending time in Florence, the artist moved to Milan in 1482 to serve at the court of Ludovico Sforza, where he worked as an engineer, painter, and stage designer. At that time, the Duchy of Milan was one of the most significant centers of power and culture in Renaissance Italy, and Ludovico sought to consolidate his dynasty’s prestige through art and architecture.
The fresco was part of a broader project to embellish the Dominican convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, a site of great importance to the Sforza family. The choice of the Last Supper as a subject aligned with the tradition of decorating monastic refectories with depictions of Christ’s meal, meant to inspire spiritual meditation among the monks during their own meals. However, while earlier representations followed rigid and symmetrical schemes, Leonardo revolutionized the composition, making it more dramatic and engaging.
Leonardo, known for his insatiable scientific and artistic curiosity, saw this commission as an opportunity to experiment with a new painting technique that would allow for greater detail and more refined chiaroscuro—features that could not be achieved with traditional fresco techniques. However, his pursuit of innovation led him to choose a method that proved problematic for the preservation of the work over time.
Leonardo: Painter or Scientist?
Leonardo da Vinci’s role as a painter has often been a topic of debate among scholars. Although he is universally recognized as one of the greatest painters in art history, his own attitude towards painting suggests that he considered it only one part of his vast range of interests. In his notebooks, Leonardo described painting as a science based on mathematical and optical principles, using it as a tool to study nature, perspective, and human anatomy.
Despite the fame he gained through his paintings, Leonardo frequently devoted himself to scientific, engineering, and anatomical studies—sometimes at the expense of commissioned works. His perfectionism and relentless pursuit of innovation often led him to begin projects without completing them. This is evident in the Last Supper, where his experimental technique compromised its longevity from the very beginning, as well as in the Battle of Anghiari, a work he never finished. Renaissance sources, including Vasari, highlight how Leonardo was prone to leaving works unfinished, drawn more to the quest for perfection and innovation than to the actual completion of commissions.
In a letter to Ludovico Sforza, Leonardo even introduced himself primarily as a military engineer rather than as a painter, demonstrating that he saw painting as a functional tool for knowledge rather than an exclusive vocation. However, when he did focus on a painting, his innovative approach profoundly transformed artistic language, as evidenced in the Last Supper.
Technique and Pictorial Innovations
Unlike traditional fresco techniques, Leonardo opted for an experimental method that would later prove problematic. He used a mixture of tempera and oil on dry plaster instead of painting on wet plaster, as was customary in fresco painting. This technique allowed him to work more slowly and achieve more refined effects of light and color, similar to those found in panel painting. However, the innovative method was not durable, leading to rapid deterioration of the work within a few decades of its completion.
The failure of the technique used for the Last Supper parallels another monumental work by Leonardo: the Battle of Anghiari. In that case, he experimented with a mixture of oils and waxes to achieve innovative pictorial effects, but the result was a disastrous premature degradation. These episodes highlight Leonardo’s complicated relationship with fresco painting and his constant search for alternative pictorial solutions—often at the expense of the durability of his works. Some, somewhat mischievously, have suggested that fresco painting, which required rapid execution so that the paint could be applied while the plaster was still wet, was incompatible with Leonardo’s slow and contemplative working method.
The Deterioration of the Artwork
Over the centuries, the Last Supper—which miraculously survived a bombing that missed it by only a few meters (as seen in the photograph on the left, where the Crucifixion by Montorfano is visible on the opposite wall of the refectory)—has undergone significant deterioration. In fact, just a few decades after its completion, the painting was already in a severely degraded state. Numerous restoration efforts have been undertaken over time to both halt the ongoing deterioration and attempt to recover some aspects of its original appearance.
The first systematic restoration attempts took place in the 19th century. However, the techniques employed failed to ensure proper conservation, and in some cases, they even accelerated the decay of the original pigments. The situation became particularly critical in the 20th century, especially from the 1970s onward, when the growing awareness of the Last Supper’s historical and artistic value led institutions to organize a long-term restoration project.
The restoration, carried out between 1975 and 1999, represents one of the most complex and controversial conservation efforts in art history. A team of restorers and scholars, using innovative methodologies and cutting-edge diagnostic tools, worked to reinforce the wall structure, stabilize the pigments, and control environmental conditions—particularly humidity, temperature, and air pollution—that were severely compromising the painting’s integrity. Although the restoration received criticism for excessively “normalizing” the artwork, it ultimately enabled the Last Supper to be preserved for future generations.
Today, thanks to a rigorous monitoring system and ongoing preventive maintenance, the Last Supper is kept in relatively stable conditions. However, protecting such a delicate and invaluable masterpiece remains an ongoing challenge. Scientific research continues to play a crucial role, allowing experts to monitor and analyze the behavior of the original materials and refine conservation and restoration techniques further.
Aesthetic and Stylistic Aspects
The Last Supper represents a turning point in Renaissance pictorial aesthetics, combining extraordinary realism with a meticulously designed composition. Leonardo orchestrates gestures, expressions, and gazes with remarkable precision to create a sense of movement and drama that deviates from the stiffness typical of earlier depictions of the same scene. The apostles’ faces are highly expressive, reflecting their emotions as they react to the shocking revelation of impending betrayal.
The subjects possess a plasticity and dynamism absent in contemporary Last Supper paintings, such as Perugino’s version in the Monastery of Sant’Onofrio in Florence or those by Ghirlandaio in San Marco, Ognissanti, and San Michele Arcangelo. In traditional depictions, the rigidity of the figures reinforced the theological topos of the scene. In contrast, Leonardo’s interpretation captures the apostles at the precise moment they learn that one among them is a traitor, portraying their astonishment with almost neorealistic intensity.
One of the most revolutionary aspects of the work is the use of central perspective, which directs the viewer’s gaze straight to Christ, the focal point of the composition. During a restoration, a small hole was discovered near Christ’s right ear—evidence of the nail Leonardo used to stretch the threads that mapped out the vanishing points.
This perspective technique finds a parallel in Leonardo’s Annunciation at the Uffizi, where he was already experimenting with depth, albeit with some inconsistencies. In the Annunciation, the spatial rendering is still uncertain, with discrepancies in the scale of the Virgin and the positioning of the lectern. In contrast, the Last Supper masterfully employs perspective to create an illusory architectural environment that visually expands the refectory’s space, enhancing the viewer’s immersion in the scene.
The Visiting Experience
Visiting the Last Supper is highly restricted, both in terms of the number of visitors allowed and the duration of the visit.
At first glance, standing before the painting—undoubtedly one of the most famous and deeply ingrained images in Western culture—one cannot help but feel a surge of surprise. There it is, the Last Supper, undeniably real and present, housed in a nondescript room in a somewhat peripheral area of Milan. The second reaction is again one of surprise: despite the frequent discussions about its state of preservation—often emphasized to the point of overshadowing the artwork itself—the fresco remains remarkably legible in all its details. While the colors are undoubtedly faded and lack the brilliance and luminosity that Leonardo originally sought with his experimental yet ultimately unsuccessful technique, the viewing experience is far from disappointing. The photo at the beginning of this post was taken with an iPhone, without any special settings or post-production, and the artwork appears exactly as it does to the naked eye.
However, after the initial minutes of awe—during which the gaze scans the painting’s surface to rediscover all the familiar details seen countless times in reproductions and to confirm that everything is indeed in place, that all the expected elements are there, and that this, despite centuries of wear and adversity, is truly a Leonardo—the surprise gradually gives way to a sense of dissatisfaction. Perhaps it is because the painting is positioned too high to be fully appreciated; to avoid a distorted perspective, one must step back, settling for a distant view that adds little to what has already been seen in books. Or perhaps it is because the faded colors evoke a sense of coitus interruptus, an unfulfilled visual gratification that grows as one tries to imagine the brilliance and vibrancy that must have once defined the piece—colors that Leonardo, as was his custom, undoubtedly applied with meticulous care but that have now faded into little more than a sinopia tinged with earthy hues.
At times, one cannot help but feel a certain sympathy for the eccentric genius who repeatedly botched commissions simply to indulge his whim of inventing new and supposedly superior techniques. At other times, one might shudder in recognition of Leonardo’s unmistakable stylistic hallmarks in the more intact sections of the work: the apostle Thomas raising his index finger toward the sky, reminiscent of Saint John the Baptist in the Louvre; John inclining his head like Saint Anne, also in the Louvre; or the perfect sfumato in the face of the apostle Philip. Yet ultimately, the predominant sensation is that of observing a relic—one that adds little to any high-quality photographic reproduction. The visit feels more like fulfilling an obligatory pilgrimage to pay homage to a universally renowned masterpiece than an opportunity for new artistic discovery.
On the wall opposite the Last Supper, there is another painting—one that could not be more different from Leonardo’s work. First and foremost, as is quite evident, Montorfano’s Crucifixion was executed in traditional fresco technique, requiring it to be completed in a much shorter timeframe. According to historical accounts, the monks who commissioned both paintings grew impatient seeing Montorfano complete his work at an industrious pace while Leonardo spent his days sitting in contemplation of his painting, occasionally adding a brushstroke. Moreover, the Crucifixion, with its somewhat awkward figures, remains rigidly anchored in 15th-century iconography, suffering in comparison with the revolutionary masterpiece across from it.
Imagining the artistic rivalry between Michelangelo and Leonardo as they worked on their respective frescoes of the Battle of Cascina and the Battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo Vecchio sends a shiver down the spine—two titans competing to create the greatest masterpieces possible, though ultimately never completed. By contrast, picturing Leonardo and Montorfano working across from each other elicits a mix of sympathy and irony. It is no surprise that in the few minutes allotted for viewing The Last Supper, Montorfano’s Crucifixion barely receives more than a few distracted glances.
After visiting the Last Supper, the tour continues with a visit to the "Chiostro delle Rane" (the Cloister of the Frogs) and the Basilica of Santa Maria delle Grazie. Just a short distance from Santa Maria delle Grazie, those wishing to extend their Leonardo-themed itinerary can visit the Vineyard of Leonardo, a vineyard gifted to the artist by Ludovico Sforza, which can be explored along with the adjacent 15th-century palace.
Conclusion
Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper is one of the most famous masterpieces in art history—an innovative, groundbreaking work that embodies Leonardo’s rebellious and visionary spirit. At the same time, it remains an ephemeral masterpiece, evoking mixed feelings in viewers.
For those with ample time in Milan to visit other essential sites such as the Duomo, the Pinacoteca di Brera, or the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, setting aside a couple of hours to see the Last Supper is certainly worthwhile—if only to pay tribute to the most significant surviving testament to Leonardo’s presence in the city. However, visitors should be prepared for the possibility of disappointment due to the painting’s state of preservation and the limited time allowed for contemplation of this elusive masterpiece.