Supper At Emmaus Analysis

Why would someone want to try and emulate a masterpiece of one of the most well-known painters of all times? What would it take to make an adaption of a masterpiece successful within our contemporary times? This essay will contrast and compare two visuals of 'Supper at Emmaus '. The first artwork is the original painting by Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio and the second visual is a reconstruction with the same title by Brazilian photographer Monica Silvia. The 17th Century master Caravaggio painted two works named " Supper at Emmaus". The first version in 1601 and the other painting was completed in 1606. Both paintings are noticeably different. For the purpose of this essay, the first rendition of this painting will be discussed. It is believed that it was commissioned by the nobleman Ciricio Mattei, while Caravaggio was living at his home. The subjects of this painting are three man around a table during supper time while the innkeeper is standing next to them. The use of light emphasis on the man with long hair, dressed in red with the white cloth on his right shoulder. He is sitting between the two men. They are sat opposite each other, on either of his side and gazing at him in an awe. The two men just had an epiphany. It is moment when

Howard Hibbard argues that as the old writers used to suggest, Caravaggio has a weakness with the perspective element. Examples of this are illustrated within this painting. The innkeeper 's overly large hands and the extended open hands of the disciple on the right hand side " are of about the same size, even though one is thrust toward us and the other . . . is as far from us as possible.” (Hibbard,1985) Another point that Prose mentioned was that the Bellori1 argued that the figs and pomegranates, that were painted as part of the fruit bowl on the table, would have been out of season. This might be a futile