Right of Reply: Michael Daley
The director of ArtWatch replies to Frances Kennedy's article on da Vinci's `Last Supper'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.REGRETFULLY, FRANCES Kennedy's celebration of the latest "restoration" of Leonardo's Last Supper (Wed) reveals that hers, is indeed, an "untutored eye." Dottoressa Pinin Brambilla's intervention is truly indefensible. It fails on two counts.
By removing all previous repaints - contrary to Italian "good practice" - she has severed the historical continuity of the mural. By any standards, this was an act of extraordinary presumption.
Her action is defended on spurious grounds. Centuries of grime and repaint were said to be covering and "eating away" at Leonardo's paint. In fact, his paint survives on only 25 per cent or so of the surface. Moreover, it was last restored only 25 years before Brambilla began - by her teacher Mauro Pelliccioli.
After first setting the surface solid with English shellac, he scraped off all repaints except those that covered only bare wall. This was judged by Berenson to be a miraculous recovery: "I felt that I was looking at what Leonardo had painted, deteriorated by the centuries but no longer deturpated by incompetent hands". Brambilla has "recovered" not Leonardo but bare wall. As a result, the surviving islands of original paint have been reset in a sea of Brambilla's late-20th-century interpretative painting.
Tragically, in these terms also, her intervention fails. Her painting is simply not good enough. Her draughtsmanship is manifestly and painfully inadequate, and nowhere more so than in the reconstruction of Leonardo's crucially expressive hands.
In the redrawn left hand of St Jude, the tip of the third finger now contains four patches of blue pigment formerly belonging to the cloak of St Matthew. Ms Brambilla claims that "art professionals" have been "impressed" by her work. Would any of them care to defend St Jude's now-blue finger? Brambilla demands a "loyal" polemic.
It is her misfortune that most informed observers feel a greater loyalty to Leonardo thanto his successive would-be "interpreters".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments