Just as a point of reference (not to infer the following statement by this writer is the one to which PDM referred as quoted)
Again - go back and look at example number one. If the painting was that deteriorated in relatively modern times (yet is still more or less "recognizable") - how much less likely that a painting in an even more deterioated state and declared "unrecognizable" has the "face" and "hint of a bosom" even remotely restored close to what Leonardo originally painted? Highly doubtful given the evidence
On that basis, then, as far as the detail is concerned, 'The Last Supper' is hardly worth spending any time on at all ~ it's not now his work and no-one knows what it originally looked like or what he intended.
Just to validate that point - consider the following excerpts from a report based upon comments by Carlo Bertelli
, Director of the Istituto Centrale del Restauro and follow-up comments by other experts. Please note that the use of underline, bold text or color was added by this writer for emphasis. Elided sections and/or quotes, some of which appear as individual paragraphs, was done either for the sake clarity or brevity given the length of report**).
"LEONARDO da Vinci's celebrated masterpiece, The Last Supper, is a ruined painting with only 20 per cent of the original work surviving, according to the man who commissioned its 20-year restoration. The admission, months before the unveiling of the restored painting, comes from Carlo Bertelli who, as director of the Istituto Centrale del Restauro, had declared the restoration's aim to be the discovery of the "real painting".
"Jacques Franck, consultant restorer to the Louvre and a Leonardo scholar, is among the restorers' sternest critics: "Ninety per cent of the work has disappeared , and the fact that you repaint 90 per cent is to me something that has not much sense."
"He spoke of the shock of seeing that nothing was left of the head of Christ, for example: any repainting cannot be faithful to Leonardo's intentions as we do not know what those intentions were, he said. "Pinin has done the best she could, but is it the best that could be done?" Instead, they have "transferred it into something else" – a 20th-century Leonardo.
""This programme is a victory for anti-restoration," said Mr Daley* … "She [Pinin Brambilla Barcilon] has destroyed the historical thread of the painting and reduced it to a bare, confused wall. She produced a blank slate and then set about repainting the whole thing herself. Her own repainting has been particularly unfortunate in her reworking of the face of Christ because it's apparent that she's remade the image according to a drawing in the Brere Museum of -a beardless Christ, not a bearded Christ, which may or may not be by Leonardo".
( * Clarification by this writer, the reference was to Michael Daley, Director of ArtWatch UK, an "organization that campaigns for restraint in the restoration of works of art")
The real issue is, therefore, that all of the buzz and speculation about the identity of the disciple to Jesus' being Mary Magdalene being based upon a combination of Dan's Brown fictional novel
as well as the well documented flawed and most likely fanciful "restored" facial and anatomical features to that disciple's image - is simply not supported by the facts.
Think about it -if the entire "head of Christ" was obliterated and had to be recreated
(some with a beard, some without a beard), on what basis are the statements valid that assure us the disciple to his right is Mary Magdalene (because the image appears "feminine") and is not the youthful Apostle John ??
Simply stated - such assurances are not
valid. They cannot
The disciple inclining his ear toward Peter
to hear what he had to say, the disciple whom Jesus loved
, the disciple to whom Mary Magdalene ran
to announce that Jesus' body was not in the tomb - is John the Apostle
, not Mary Magdalene the disciple.
Still to come - a finishing entry revealing from Leonardo's own notes what he
had to say regarding the figure to Jesus' right.
...and Grrr82CU (** The full report by the Museum Security Organization may be viewed at http://www.museum-security.org/reports/08498.html)