A few months ago, a controversial tableau from the Paris Olympics’ opening ceremony—a provocative portrayal of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper (1495-98)—faced significant criticism for its perceived mockery of a widely revered symbol of Christian iconography. The recurring theme in all criticisms was the bold interpretation of what is a household, albeit a dominant scene in Christian myth.
The episode from the opening ceremony, along with the ensuing debates, underscored the importance of artists and their role in manoeuvring visual culture. The ceremony sparked a debate on interpretation and its boundaries.
Leonardo da Vinci had made the episode a fixture in every household. He captured a moment of divine resignation—a god who chose to die as a man. It was no ordinary death, after all. The death belonged to a punitive scheme, a punishment for a Jew, who challenged and subverted the foundations of Judaism. Da Vinci’s Christ was condemned to death for his daring interpretation of Moses’ laws and his bold questioning of traditions that belied institutions. In response to his defiance, the Jewish priests clamoured for his blood. Vinci’s Christ, facing impending death, exudes fortitude. His disciples’ varied expressions highlight the sacrifice’s impact.
The painting is an interpretation, albeit the most famous interpretation. Before Vinci, we had Andrea del Castagno (1421-1457) and Dieric Bouts (1415-1475).
