The Last Supper saved, repainted, scratched, consolidated
Leonardo's masterpiece has not survived five centuries intact. Its current surface is the result of a continuous struggle between fragile technology, a damp building, sometimes brutal restorations and conservation that has become scientific.
Restore what, when so much paint is gone?
The central issue is not to make The Last Supper "like new". It is necessary to stabilize the fragments painted by Leonardo, remove only what can be identified as a later addition, make the gaps understandable without inventing, then control the air in the refectory.
Ancient restorations often aimed to reconstruct a complete picture. Those of the 20th century shift the focus towards the conservation of authentic material. This change explains the controversies: a more readable version may be less materially faithful, while a more fragmentary surface may be historically more honest.
Why did the paint degrade so quickly?
The Last Supper is not a fresco in the strict sense. In a real fresco, the pigments penetrate a still damp coating and bind to it during the carbonation of the lime. Leonardo wants to work slowly, return to a face, blend the shadows and correct his movements. He therefore paints on a dry wall prepared white, with a binder which remains more on the surface.
This pictorial freedom produces effects similar to easel painting, but creates a vulnerable layer. As early as 1517, Antonio de Beatis reported that the work was beginning to deteriorate. In 1568, Vasari already described it almost as a confused stain.
dry-worked pigments and binder
clear surface intended to reflect light
support already taken when Leonardo painted
refectory wall subject to environment
A story of rescues and injuries
The Cenacolo Vinciano Museum lists nine restoration attempts since the beginning of the 18th century, to which are added older interventions identified in the field. This chronology also includes the accidents which imposed these rescues.
Leonardo experiments
He paints slowly on dry coating in order to obtain patterns, transparencies and repentance. Optical splendor is acquired at the cost of fragile adhesion.
The witnesses see the disappearance
Antonio de Beatis, Vasari then Federico Borromeo describe a work which loses its material. The damage is therefore not an invention of modern restorers.
A door passes through the composition
An opening is made in the lower part of the wall. In particular, it destroys the feet of Christ and a portion of the tablecloth. The door will then be walled up, but the loss is irreversible.
Michelangelo Bellotti completes
First known restoration: cracks filled, lacunar areas covered with oil, varnished surface. The objective is to find a continuous scene, even if this covers and transforms the old material.
Giuseppe Mazza repainted
It removes previous additions and largely repeats the figures. The intervention is interrupted in the face of protests. The episode shows that the line between restorer and new painter was already contested.
Stefano Barezzi attempts a detachment
Accustomed to separating frescoes from their walls, Barezzi wrongly assumes that Leonardo's technique lends itself to this. The test damages the surface before being abandoned; a repair follows.
Luigi Cavenaghi observes before acting
More measured analyses, photographs, consolidation and retouching mark a scientific step. Cavenaghi confirms that the painting is not executed like a traditional fresco.
Orestes Silvestri refixes color
It intervenes on the adhesion of the pictorial layer and carries out integrations. The priority gradually becomes physical stability, even if the fixing products will in turn age.
The refectory is bombed
Roof, vaults and walls collapse during an Allied raid. Protected by sandbags and temporary structures, the wall of The Last Supper remains standing, exposed to bad weather until it is sheltered.
Mauro Pellicioli stabilizes postwar
It consolidates, cleans and removes some of the repaintings. The image appears to be resurrected, but fixatives, varnishes and interpretations inherited from several eras remain a complex problem.
Pinin Brambilla Barcilon changes scale
For twenty-two years, the team mapped, examined and treated the surface fragment by fragment. It searches for authentic remains under additions, consolidates the material and restrains the gaps with restraint.
The climate becomes the first restaurateur
Air filtration, airlock, humidity and particle monitoring, gauge and visit duration: preventive conservation aims to avoid a new invasive construction site.
1901 and 1908: what Cavenaghi changed
Old photographs are not simple illustrations. They make it possible to distinguish losses, retouching and transformations from readability. Be careful though: lighting, emulsion, contrast and print also modify the appearance.
The wall that remains standing
The image of the ruins sometimes feeds a story that is too simple: a bomb would have hit The Last Supper, miraculously intact. In reality, the complex is seriously affected; the painted wall survives thanks to its position, the protections installed and an element of luck. The impact, the disappearance of the roof and exposure to outside air nevertheless aggravate the risks.
What was lost: much of the neighboring architecture, the climate protection of the refectory and the normal stability of the place.
From retouching to investigation
Each site depends on the knowledge and materials of its time. Cavenaghi, Pellicioli and Brambilla Barcilon do not pursue exactly the same ideal, but their documented interventions make possible a more precise history of the surface.
Luigi Cavenaghi
It combines technical diagnosis, photography, careful cleaning and consolidation. His project contributes to making La Cène a laboratory for modern restoration.
Mauro Pellicioli
After the war, he consolidated a threatened painting and removed additions. The film shot in 1953 also transformed the restoration into a public event.
Pinin Brambilla Barcilon
She is leading a twenty-two-year microscopic project. Each fragment attributable to Leonardo must be identified, reattached and placed back in a readable image without masking the losses.
A millimeter restoration
The team works under the direction of Pinin Brambilla Barcilon, with Carlo Bertelli then successive scientific managers. The official objective is to find the parts painted by Leonardo hidden under the repaintings and to present a work as close as possible to its authentic appearance - while recognizing the immense losses.
Photographs, surveys, analyzes and close observation distinguish ancient material, restorations and gaps.
Fragile areas are reattached so that treatment does not detach what it seeks to save.
Foreign layers are gradually removed when their identification and the security of the material allow it.
The gaps are mitigated by identifiable and reversible intervention, not by complete imitation of Leonardo.
Find Leonard or produce a new image?
The arguments of the construction site
- Successive repaintings masked authentic fragments and modified colors, gestures and volumes.
- A very long study made it possible to treat each area according to its real situation.
- The assumed shortcomings avoided passing off a modern invention as a painting by Leonardo.
- Restoration was finally accompanied by a climate system designed to preserve the outcome.
Critics' reservations
- Removing an old layer is irreversible, even if that layer is not Leonardo's.
- The distinction between original, alteration and repainted can remain uncertain in such a complex material.
- Reintegration tones influence overall reading and may seem too clear or too fragmentary.
- The appearance of 1999 is not that of 1498: it remains a scholarly presentation of the preserved remains.
The restoration continues without touching the wall
Since 1999, the best action is often not to intervene. The museum limits pollutants and variations brought by visitors. Access via alternating doors functions like an airlock; temperature, humidity and particles are monitored; groups and attendance time are supervised.
Four mistakes to avoid
"The Last Supper is a fresco."
For convenience, this word is often used. Technically, Leonardo did not paint in fresh coating according to the buon fresco; he worked on dry support.
"It was completely repainted in 1999."
The modern site, on the contrary, removed identified repaintings, consolidated the fragments and made the gaps legible through controlled reintegration.
"The 1943 bomb hit the paint directly."
The complex and refectory were ravaged, but the wall of The Last Supper remained standing. The exposure of the wall after the collapse nevertheless constituted a major danger.
"We know the exact percentage of original paint."
Spectacular figures are circulating, but a single percentage oversimplifies a surface where preparation, pigment, retouching and gaps vary zone by zone.
Look at the composition as a whole
A reproduction does not replace the Milan wall and must not imitate its material accidents. However, it allows us to study at home the construction of groups, perspective, the table and the emotional wave that passes through the apostles.
See the reproduction of The Last Supper Leonardo da Vinci Collection Religious works
Check, compare, explore further
The restorations of The Last Supper in brief
How many times has The Last Supper been restored?
The Museo del Cenacolo Vinciano indicates nine documented attempts since the beginning of the 18th century, while pointing to traces of even older interventions.
When was the last restoration?
The major campaign led by Pinin Brambilla Barcilon began in 1977 and ended in 1999, after twenty-two years of work.
Why was Leonardo's technique fragile?
He painted on a dry coating in order to work slowly and obtain refined effects. The pigments bonded less securely to the wall than in a traditional fresco.
Who broke through a door in The Last Supper?
A door was opened in the lower part of the wall in 1652, in the context of the use of the refectory. It destroyed the feet of Christ and a central part of the composition.
Did the Last Supper survive a bombing?
Yes. In August 1943, the refectory was very seriously damaged by an Allied bombing. The painted wall, protected in particular by sandbags, remained standing.
What really remains of Leonardo?
Authentic fragments distributed over the entire surface, but very unevenly preserved. It is more accurate to speak of a incomplete original material than to put forward a certain overall percentage.
Why is the 1999 restoration controversial?
Because removing old repaintings is irreversible and presenting gaps involves visual choices. Defenders of the site emphasize its duration, its documentation and the desire to distinguish the original from the additions.
Can we still restore The Last Supper today?
Occasional interventions remain possible if the material requires it, but the priority is preventive conservation: filtered air, monitored climate, limited visits and permanent control.
0 comments