Secret image ‘found’ in Last Supper

Italy Magazine ^ | July 26, 2007

[evets]

[Mr. Lucky]

Sure, the ignorant will make fun of this revelation, but maybe this guy was given magic glasses by the angel Moroni; have you thought of that?

[Pistolshot]

Wait, there’s a Hooter’s girl in the painting? Who would have thought DaVinci was that creative.

[Badeye]

‘Sure, the ignorant will make fun of this revelation, but maybe this guy was given magic glasses by the angel Moroni; have you thought of that?’

Maybe it was ‘magic dust’?

[Mr. Lucky]

Actually, that’s every bit as likely as this guy’s story.

[Badeye]

Actually, that’s every bit as likely as this guy’s story.

I think the guy just wanted some attention.

[hardback]

[airborne]

What are the chances that he just painted over another picture?

It’s been done before.

[Joe 6-pack]

The Last Supper was largely an experimental piece on the part of Leonardo. Traditional fresco painting was done in one of two styles, buon or secco. Both employed water soluble media, with buon fresco being painted into the wet plaster, and secco fresco painted onto plaster that had already dried. By nature, fresco, particularly the buon technique offered tremendous permanence, it did not allow for the optical effects that could be achieved with a oil paints and the layering of translucent layers, glazes and varnishes. Leonardo's Last Supper was an attempt on the part of the artist to reconcile the best of both worlds, and while producing a monumental example of Renaissance painting, his experiment was a technical failure, and began to decay during the artist's own lifetime.

The fact of the matter is, this painting has been "restored" and repaired so many times by so many hands that there is plenty of doubt as to how close what we see today is to what Leonardo actually painted. I find it highly doubtful that any "newly discovered" hidden or subliminal symbols were actually part of the original design, or if they were, were only hidden by subsequent artists.

The whole Dan Brown thing, about the presence of Mary Magdalene's appearance in the painting is highly spurious, given that most of the faces as we view them now, are probably only vague suggestions of the manner in which they were originally rendered.

[AngryJawa]

South Park was right. St. Peter was really a rabbit.

I KNEW IT!

[Fairview]

All kidding aside, that does look like a chick on Jesus’s right.

[GraniteStateConservative]

It is a painting...not a photograph of the Last Supper. DaVinci was NOT in attendence at that table, so ANY depiction that he creates is from his imagination.

Same here. All I could figure is that this conspiracy includes the idea that Da Vinci knew about the secrets alleged by the theorists to be true.

[Joe 6-pack]

Here's another example of a famous painting rife with masonic/templar symbolism:

[nuke rocketeer]

Is this the same guy who hears stuff when playing old Beatles records backwards at 66 rpm?

[Lee'sGhost]

OK, what’s that thing under the guy’s arm that is sitting third from the right? Looks like a stuffed pig.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

What are the chances that he just painted over another picture?

'Slim' and 'None'.
It's a mural that Leonardo painted on a wall of stone...not a canvas.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Pop Art Toaster: What, no Jesus face?

[Lee'sGhost]

I’ve always thought that, even as a little kid.

[DangerDanger]

“It would not surprise me to discover that there are figures in an underpainting that were eliminated or repositioned in the final composition. That doesn’t make them “secret messages”.”

Your theory is a good one, but he might have indeed intended it to be a “secret message” - from his imagination.

I paint using oil based paints and various quality canvasses. Often times, I purposely weave in and/or add “hidden” images in the painting or beind the obvious picture. Some people “see” what’s “hidden” to the naked eye, some people don’t - or they do after a time.

Regardless, it’s a painting, not a snapshot.