Analyse This: Caravaggio "Supper at Emmaus"

[dcorc]

Caravaggio - "Supper at Emmaus" (1601-02)
Oil on canvas, 139 x 195 cm
National Gallery, London




The gospel according to St Luke (24:13-32) tells of the meeting of two apostles with the resurrected Christ. It is only during the meal that his companions recognize him in the way he blesses and breaks the bread. But with that, the vision of Christ vanishes. In the gospel according to St Mark (16:12) he is said to have appeared to them "in an other form".

I think there are some interesting things going on in this painting in relation to perspective and viewpoint - I'll be interested to here comments on these in particular, but also anything else anyone's struck by.

Dave

[A Few Pigments]

I’ve always been bothered by the size of the right hand of the figure on the right, but it helps to lead the eye through the composition as well as slow the eye down. The use of bits of white to accomplish the same thing is brilliant, but the white bit of material below the figure on the right, floating in black negative space is disconcerting.

The bowl of fruit at the edge of the table adds to the 3d effect. A tool commonly used for hundreds of years to create a greater feeling of depth. And the use of red to both create a triangle on one side of the table while at the same time acting as a balance for the weight of the dramatic arm gesture on the other side of the table.

Caravaggio changed the shadows on the figure standing next to Christ. He decided he didn’t like them the way he had originally drawn them. There are so many tricks here it’s more like a magic shop than a painting. The red reminds me that Caravaggio killed a man during his life. Perhaps this painting represents a desire by Caravaggio to resurrect his victim.

[Biki]

i love the foreshortening of the left arm of the man on the right - i think it looks perfect, but i see what you mean about the right hand.
and I agree about the white cloth floating in the dark.

but what is the gesture he is making .....
and what is the gesture of the other man half in/half out of his chair, do you think.?

the bowl of fruit i find strange - it looks like it is about to fall off the edge.

[dcorc]

Originally Posted by A Few Pigments

There are so many tricks here it’s more like a magic shop than a painting.

There certainly are some tricks here!



The shell worn on the lapel was apparently the sign of a pilgrim, I remember reading somewhere.

I'm sure we've seen that carafe before (in the "Bacchus")

Why is Christ beardless?

The hands of the disciple on the right are drawn the same size despite the difference in their distance from us.

Is the white cloth tied round the disciple's waist/on his lap? Or is in frozen in a split-second in mid-air, having been dropped from the disciple's left hand?

The perspective is decidedly "fudged" - note how the angle of the tabletop doesn't quite agree with the various dishes on it and they don't quite agree with each other - the bowl on the edge is seen almost "square-on"

What's the spatial relationship of the disciple's right hand to Christ's left shoulder - is it level with it, further away from us than it - does the impression of distance agree with that from Christ's position at the table? Just how much space is there on the table under Christ's outstretched arms?

The disciple on the left, rising from his chair in surprise also doesn't seem to occupy quite the same space.

All quite subtle - the question is, are all these little discrepancies just Caravaggio struggling to get the viewpoint consistent, and not quite succeeding - or are they all there deliberately - either for compositional reasons - or to be subtly unsettling, to give the painting an air of something uncanny happening?

The painting was made in the period 1601-02 - from this bio, below, the killing of Tomassoni occurred in 1606.

from http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/bio/c/caravagg/biograph.html

"In 1600 he was accused of blows by a fellow painter, and the following year he wounded a soldier. In 1603 he was imprisoned on the complaint of another painter and released only through the intercession of the French ambassador. In April 1604 he was accused of throwing a plate of artichokes in the face of a waiter, and in October he was arrested for throwing stones at the Roman Guards. In May 1605 he was seized for misuse of arms, and on July 29 he had to flee Rome for a time because he had wounded a man in defense of his mistress. Within a year, on May 29, 1606, again in Rome, during a furious brawl over a disputed score in a game of tennis, Caravaggio killed one Ranuccio Tomassoni."

Dave

[Titanium]

Here's a hint folks -Decoration.

Old Master painting has little to do with Reality.

It's also the difference between this high point
and the 19th Century Academics.

Enjoy stretching your minds.
Titanium

[dcorc]

Titanium - care to stretch yours a little too? contribute something a touch less vague?

Dave

[artmom]

Why shouldn't Christ be beardless??? Beings (angels) from heaven are usually portrayed beardless. Perhaps this was to signify that he had been to heaven and returned.

The tension in this painting is palpable; the outstretched arms, the man rising from the chair, the bowl on the edge of the table--a moment in time, caught on canvas.

I particularly like the way Christ is "protected" by the outflung arms, the lean of the standing man, the curve of the back of the chair, the table between the viewer and Him.

This one is interesting to analyze. Thanks, Dave, for posting it.

Lyn

[Titanium]

Dave,

if you follow the Cowdisley address I left for you or anyone else.Virgil Elliot answers this vaguery very well.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cowdisley/

See the post ,

Message 9054
Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:49 pm
Re: [cowdisley] A few more thoughts on High accuracy in drawing-Noble
________________

I am afraid,this is one of those very complicated question/reading/answer situations.The more mature painters handle this better than I could.

Happy reading.
You can always ask Mr.Elliot more if your still in need of clarification.

I don't believe I have the liberty to print Mr.Elliot's reply without his permission.
Titanium

[dcorc]

Titanium - I've been following the cowdisley discussions as a digest with some interest these last few weeks, I would recommend others do likewise, and I thank you for bringing it to my/our attention.

Personally, I'm well-aware that art is about more than merely copying reality - much great art, though superficially realistic or mimetic, is illusionistic in the service of concept. There are many other paths to this insight in addition to those that start via the atelier or the unversity art department.

Perhaps one might summarise Virgil Elliot's position as essentially that is an emphasis on the development of analytic skills during studentship, and synthetic (constructive, rather than rubber ) by the mature artist?

Dave

[Titanium]

Dave,

good to see your reading at Cowdisley.Your points would be interesting reading,why not post them and see where it all goes.

That e-mail from Mr.Elliot,is only the tip of the iceberg.There is much more.The ideas of the past are no longer directly linked to today,thus much of what is in an Old Master is not easily seen and therefore cannot be appreciated.

I apologise for the cryptic type responses.I am myself wrestling with these concepts from the past and cannot fully explain them to anyone.

Hoping to see your postings on Cowdisley,on this topic.We could do well with another way of seeing.
Titanium

*As far as I know Mr.Elliot is not out of an Atelier or an Art University.You may of course ask him.

*Not sure how your using analytical.
I offer this.
When I did O and A'levels,I was told that Art was first to see if we could render,then later to see if we could think,
but after the Studio,it became awareness.
In fact it was the Studio that brought about the move away from rendering.

[Speudo]

Caravaggio is all about eliciting and emotional response. He has purposely broken the picture plane thus making you part of the action. If you feel uncomfortable with basket of fruit he would like you to push it back on the table. Humm... now you are right there recognizing Christ too, want a chair?

[dcorc]

Thanks Speudo - very good comment!

Dave

[lisagloria]

Yes, I think Virgil Elliot is largely self-taught.

Re: another poster, I was thinking the same thing, that the beardless Christ represented the Christ risen, who was unencumbered by earthly gestures of piety, such as the beard of the studied man. It is both accomplished (spiritually) and humble? Maybe?

[guillot]

Originally Posted by dcorc

I'm sure we've seen that carafe before (in the "Bacchus")


Dave

Absolutely !! Looks to be the very same carafe.

Tina

[Ant Carlos]

Hi Dave and all,
The composition on this work was really demanding. I would say Caravaggio focused so much attention on it and missed something on the viewpoint and perspective. It's clear that he played with some odd things on purpose, but imo he definetely made mistakes.
Anyway he also managed to achieve a superb composition and balance. The star of the scene is not in the figure of the Christ, but in the reactions of the figures surrounding him.

Ant