
I think that the majority of people would be able to immediately identify The Last Supper when they see it. It is a very iconic image. If people haven't seen the original they at least recognize a rendition when they see it. It's easy for anyone to sit a semi large group of people, sit them at a long table, with one figure emphasized in the middle, and it would become a substitute for the work.
My question is does this take away for the piece itself? Does the work of art lose some of its meaning? I think it does. The painting is no longer a symbol for Christ and communion. It becomes merely an iconic image, a symbol, for others to use.
This has happened with many other famous works of art. The Mona Lisa, The Scream, and American Gothic are a few of the most commonly used paintings. Have these paintings also lost some of there essence or aura because of popular culture? I believe they have. I think that every single time one of these paintings is reproduced in some way, shape, or form, a little bit of their essence is lost forever.
I assume you have read and discussed Walter Benjamin's article "the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction", a seminal piece dealing with aura and art....
ReplyDeleteI think the image you posted is actually not how DaVinci's Last Supper look like actually, which brings a couple points:
- the work was a commission, but the artist made many choices that might have been antagonistic to the church (meaning for him it might have not meant anything spiritual)..... this of course brings out all kinds of questions in terms of intention...
- Benjamin sort of purports that photography (and now the web, though he'd know know this then) made images more democratic.... if photography did not exist, chances r u'd never be able to see this image, or very few people would have the chance to go see it...
- the image itself is decaying...... is it losing its aura?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ăšltima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg