(no subject)
You Are An Intro-Extrovert!
Sometimes you're social - sometimes you're shy
You've got a bit of an Introvert / Extrovert split going on
You enjoy all sorts of situations. Parties, small groups, and alone time.
Too much of one, and you'll long for the other. You need varity!
Chances are, you've got both serious and fun friends - and they don't get along.
Are You An Extrovert or Introvert?
You Are Speed Skating
You're motivated, aggressive, and willing to work hard to win.
You have what it takes to be hell on skates!
What Winter Sport Are You?
riiight
Rachel Oldfield 3-12-06
Western Civ.
Comparison Analysis of Giotto and Duccio’s Last Supper
Both Duccio and Giotto painted their versions of the Last Supper from the New Testament in Italy at a time when the Gothic influence was spilling over into Italian painting. Both Duccio and Giotto are important predecessors of the Renaissance and their paintings therefore both show many stylistic similarities. At the same time, however, differences arise from the influences exerted upon each artist. Duccio’s Last Supper is a panel painted with tempera on wood for the high altar of Siena’s cathedral between 1308 and 1311. Though painted at the beginning of the fourteenth century, Duccio’s Last Supper shows much influence of the “Greek manner” or the revival of Byzantine influences that lasted through the end of the thirteenth century, as well as a certain Gothic element. Giotto’s Last Supper, painted in the Arena Chapel in Padua in 1305 and 1306 reflect less of these Byzantine influences that peaked before he did. Giotto instead draws less from the Byzantine tradition and builds more upon the effect of simplification and picture space.
Much of this Byzantine influence can be seen in the use of color in the panel. Though partly because of the characteristics of the medium used, Duccio’s colors are very intense and saturated. The red-orange garments of as many as six of the disciplines is extremely vivid and vibrant, and even the navy blue and brown cloaks are saturated as well. Duccio has enacted a mainly warm color scheme, accentuated by the golden halos of the disciplines on the far side of the table -another Byzantine tradition. While there are certainly contrasts in terms of color, there is a small range in terms of value. The largest contrast is the light tan of the table against the figures and the architectural setting surrounding it. In this way also while modeling in light is present to make the forms appear three dimensional, Duccio uses it only sparingly. This can been seen in any of the figures; looking at the brown cloak of the discipline seated third from right with his back towards the viewer it is apparent that only few deviations in value are used to suggest the peaks and recesses in the drapery.
In part because it is a fresco, Giotto’s Last Supper uses a larger variety of colors that are much less saturated. The colors have an effect of more coolness, lightness, and simplicity compared to Duccio’s rich saturation. But Giotto, in contrast, uses his less intense colors to create an effect that is just as intense by making them clear and of varying value to form more contrasts. Just looking at the garments of the two disciplines seated to the far right facing away from the viewer one can see the crisp contrasts formed by the bunched garment, of the pale pink and deep red.
Related to the effects produced by using different ranges, intensities, and hues of colors is the difference in drapery between Duccio and Giotto’s images. The drapery in Duccio’s image conceals, in many ways, the anatomy beneath. In looking at the drapery of the disciple seated second from the left on the nearer bench, it is hard to tell where his thigh meets his hip and where exactly his back is. The drapery falls naturally enough but still rather fluidly.
The treatment of drapery in Giotto’s Last Supper is starkly different and reveals the artist’s rather different style. Giotto’s drapery is formed much more crisply and the folds are much more pronounced. It is very easy to see the precise weight of the body that is underneath the garments and where there is strain versus space.
The treatment of anatomy in both is also notable because both show a movement away from the more two-dimensional anatomy of the Byzantines but yet each retains its own characteristics. Duccio’s figures take up real space and anatomy is treated naturalistically, yet there are some inconsistencies. The arm of the discipline second from left on the side of the table closest to the viewer protrudes oddly from his body - it does not continue in space away from the viewer even though the discipline is seated so that we see his back. The faces of Duccio’s figures are stylized and show only mild expressions of surprise and perhaps sorrow - appropriate since according to the Bible “they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, ‘Is it I?’” (Mark 14:17).
Giotto’s figures, too, are portrayed more naturalistically and have even more of that three-dimensional solidity. On the whole Giotto’s figures are squatter in terms of general body type, and the faces too are stylized. In the disciple seated second from right on the far side of the table one can see the long, flat nose and languid yet intense eyes derived from the Byzantine tradition. Here, too, Giotto has not endowed the disciples with much emotion. They seem to be looking at their neighbors, perhaps wondering about the identity of the betrayer.
The compositions of Duccio’s Last Supper and Giotto’s Last Supper are very different. In Duccio’s panel, the main action of the scene is focused in the middle with Jesus in the center. In this way the picture is composed very traditionally. The inwardly focused glances of the disciples channel the focus inward toward Jesus. The diagonally pointing hand gestures made by the disciplines at the bottom of the picture also create movement up and inward towards Jesus. Giotto’s fresco, by contrast, has the main focus of the scene located at the far left of the picture. Giotto’s figures are much more static and closed, but some indication of movement is created by the alternating directions of the disciples’ glances. The upward sweeps of the toga-style garments of the disciples at the bottom also create movement upward and across the picture to the left.
In both images, detail is used selectively and faithful treatment of texture is sporadic. In Duccio’s one can see that he put much detail into certain aspects of the image, such as the patterned tablecloth and vase, while others such as the glasses of Jesus’ blood look rather simplified. Duccio did, however, render the hair of his disciples rather naturalistically from the wispy, grizzly gray locks of the lower center disciple to the smooth, slightly waved hair of the disciple second from left on the top. Various hues and modeling in light were used to make the bone structure distinguishable and to make the fleshy parts of the faces softer. Wrinkles are even discernable on most of the disciples on the forehead and around the mouth. Duccio even took care to show the grain of the wood bench.
Giotto’s panel also has a great amount of detail, though used so as to still produce that effect of clarity and simplicity that was present in much of his work. One can see fine detail in the architectural framework and in the patterns on the cloaks, especially the one of the disciple seated third from right on the closer bench. Like Duccio, Giotto invested much detail into rendering the wispy, wavy texture of the hair. Yet when it comes to the faces of Giotto’s figures, the skin is relatively smooth and flat - planes that come together to form a face.
The architectural settings of both pictures and the role perspective plays are integral in comparing the two images. Duccio is the first to combine figures enclosed by an architectural interior in picture space as we see in his Last Supper. By looking at the diagonal lines of the ceiling at the top it is clear that it is receding into the background so that if continued, the lines formed by the edges of the ceiling and the wooden beams would meet at the vanishing point. It is not merely that there is architecture, as many Gothic paintings tended to “house” their figures in architecture, but here the figures are enclosed in it. The viewer is placed inside the room. Duccio does not show complete linear perspective, however, for upon closer examination it is evident there are multiple perspectives at work such as had been previously done. The table, for one is “tipped up” and is not consistent with the perspective used in portraying the ceiling. Most of the bowls are seen from slightly above and sideways whereas the knives and the pig in the center of the table are seen directly from above. Although there are these inconsistencies in the perspective and the figures are too large for their architectural setting, it was nevertheless a significant achievement for Duccio who was the first to demonstrate this new kind of picture space.
Slightly younger than Duccio, Giotto carries Duccio’s perspective further. Though the viewer is not placed directly into a room like in Duccio’s Last Supper, there is definitely an architectural setting that encloses Jesus and the disciples. Moreover, Giotto has kept the table and the figures seated at it in one consistent perspective so that it feels real and substantial. This perspective can be seen in everything from the oval shaped halo of the disciple on the far right, top bench to the legs of the wooden bench at the bottom of the fresco that recede back into space. In contrast to the ambiguous setting of the figures in Duccio’s Last Supper, in Giotto’s it is they who define the space. Here it is the architectural setting that is less definitive of the two; the post marking where the back of the room should be appears directly next to the end of the wooden bench at the “closer” side of the room.
Duccio and Giotto both convey the scene of the Last Supper with success and mastery, though they use different techniques to accomplish those ends. Duccio draws more from the Byzantine tradition that was experiencing a revival for more of his lifetime. Though first to introduce the new concept of enclosing figures in an architectural setting, a new picture space, it was the younger Giotto who carried the idea of a spatial setting further. Giotto however, made his figures the creators of such depth and simplified them to produce a more dramatic clarity. Both works are important as different interpretations of the Last Supper and are precedents to the famous rebirth that was to come approximately a century later.
Sometimes you're social - sometimes you're shy
You've got a bit of an Introvert / Extrovert split going on
You enjoy all sorts of situations. Parties, small groups, and alone time.
Too much of one, and you'll long for the other. You need varity!
Chances are, you've got both serious and fun friends - and they don't get along.
Are You An Extrovert or Introvert?
You Are Speed Skating
You're motivated, aggressive, and willing to work hard to win.
You have what it takes to be hell on skates!
What Winter Sport Are You?
riiight
Rachel Oldfield 3-12-06
Western Civ.
Comparison Analysis of Giotto and Duccio’s Last Supper
Both Duccio and Giotto painted their versions of the Last Supper from the New Testament in Italy at a time when the Gothic influence was spilling over into Italian painting. Both Duccio and Giotto are important predecessors of the Renaissance and their paintings therefore both show many stylistic similarities. At the same time, however, differences arise from the influences exerted upon each artist. Duccio’s Last Supper is a panel painted with tempera on wood for the high altar of Siena’s cathedral between 1308 and 1311. Though painted at the beginning of the fourteenth century, Duccio’s Last Supper shows much influence of the “Greek manner” or the revival of Byzantine influences that lasted through the end of the thirteenth century, as well as a certain Gothic element. Giotto’s Last Supper, painted in the Arena Chapel in Padua in 1305 and 1306 reflect less of these Byzantine influences that peaked before he did. Giotto instead draws less from the Byzantine tradition and builds more upon the effect of simplification and picture space.
Much of this Byzantine influence can be seen in the use of color in the panel. Though partly because of the characteristics of the medium used, Duccio’s colors are very intense and saturated. The red-orange garments of as many as six of the disciplines is extremely vivid and vibrant, and even the navy blue and brown cloaks are saturated as well. Duccio has enacted a mainly warm color scheme, accentuated by the golden halos of the disciplines on the far side of the table -another Byzantine tradition. While there are certainly contrasts in terms of color, there is a small range in terms of value. The largest contrast is the light tan of the table against the figures and the architectural setting surrounding it. In this way also while modeling in light is present to make the forms appear three dimensional, Duccio uses it only sparingly. This can been seen in any of the figures; looking at the brown cloak of the discipline seated third from right with his back towards the viewer it is apparent that only few deviations in value are used to suggest the peaks and recesses in the drapery.
In part because it is a fresco, Giotto’s Last Supper uses a larger variety of colors that are much less saturated. The colors have an effect of more coolness, lightness, and simplicity compared to Duccio’s rich saturation. But Giotto, in contrast, uses his less intense colors to create an effect that is just as intense by making them clear and of varying value to form more contrasts. Just looking at the garments of the two disciplines seated to the far right facing away from the viewer one can see the crisp contrasts formed by the bunched garment, of the pale pink and deep red.
Related to the effects produced by using different ranges, intensities, and hues of colors is the difference in drapery between Duccio and Giotto’s images. The drapery in Duccio’s image conceals, in many ways, the anatomy beneath. In looking at the drapery of the disciple seated second from the left on the nearer bench, it is hard to tell where his thigh meets his hip and where exactly his back is. The drapery falls naturally enough but still rather fluidly.
The treatment of drapery in Giotto’s Last Supper is starkly different and reveals the artist’s rather different style. Giotto’s drapery is formed much more crisply and the folds are much more pronounced. It is very easy to see the precise weight of the body that is underneath the garments and where there is strain versus space.
The treatment of anatomy in both is also notable because both show a movement away from the more two-dimensional anatomy of the Byzantines but yet each retains its own characteristics. Duccio’s figures take up real space and anatomy is treated naturalistically, yet there are some inconsistencies. The arm of the discipline second from left on the side of the table closest to the viewer protrudes oddly from his body - it does not continue in space away from the viewer even though the discipline is seated so that we see his back. The faces of Duccio’s figures are stylized and show only mild expressions of surprise and perhaps sorrow - appropriate since according to the Bible “they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one after another, ‘Is it I?’” (Mark 14:17).
Giotto’s figures, too, are portrayed more naturalistically and have even more of that three-dimensional solidity. On the whole Giotto’s figures are squatter in terms of general body type, and the faces too are stylized. In the disciple seated second from right on the far side of the table one can see the long, flat nose and languid yet intense eyes derived from the Byzantine tradition. Here, too, Giotto has not endowed the disciples with much emotion. They seem to be looking at their neighbors, perhaps wondering about the identity of the betrayer.
The compositions of Duccio’s Last Supper and Giotto’s Last Supper are very different. In Duccio’s panel, the main action of the scene is focused in the middle with Jesus in the center. In this way the picture is composed very traditionally. The inwardly focused glances of the disciples channel the focus inward toward Jesus. The diagonally pointing hand gestures made by the disciplines at the bottom of the picture also create movement up and inward towards Jesus. Giotto’s fresco, by contrast, has the main focus of the scene located at the far left of the picture. Giotto’s figures are much more static and closed, but some indication of movement is created by the alternating directions of the disciples’ glances. The upward sweeps of the toga-style garments of the disciples at the bottom also create movement upward and across the picture to the left.
In both images, detail is used selectively and faithful treatment of texture is sporadic. In Duccio’s one can see that he put much detail into certain aspects of the image, such as the patterned tablecloth and vase, while others such as the glasses of Jesus’ blood look rather simplified. Duccio did, however, render the hair of his disciples rather naturalistically from the wispy, grizzly gray locks of the lower center disciple to the smooth, slightly waved hair of the disciple second from left on the top. Various hues and modeling in light were used to make the bone structure distinguishable and to make the fleshy parts of the faces softer. Wrinkles are even discernable on most of the disciples on the forehead and around the mouth. Duccio even took care to show the grain of the wood bench.
Giotto’s panel also has a great amount of detail, though used so as to still produce that effect of clarity and simplicity that was present in much of his work. One can see fine detail in the architectural framework and in the patterns on the cloaks, especially the one of the disciple seated third from right on the closer bench. Like Duccio, Giotto invested much detail into rendering the wispy, wavy texture of the hair. Yet when it comes to the faces of Giotto’s figures, the skin is relatively smooth and flat - planes that come together to form a face.
The architectural settings of both pictures and the role perspective plays are integral in comparing the two images. Duccio is the first to combine figures enclosed by an architectural interior in picture space as we see in his Last Supper. By looking at the diagonal lines of the ceiling at the top it is clear that it is receding into the background so that if continued, the lines formed by the edges of the ceiling and the wooden beams would meet at the vanishing point. It is not merely that there is architecture, as many Gothic paintings tended to “house” their figures in architecture, but here the figures are enclosed in it. The viewer is placed inside the room. Duccio does not show complete linear perspective, however, for upon closer examination it is evident there are multiple perspectives at work such as had been previously done. The table, for one is “tipped up” and is not consistent with the perspective used in portraying the ceiling. Most of the bowls are seen from slightly above and sideways whereas the knives and the pig in the center of the table are seen directly from above. Although there are these inconsistencies in the perspective and the figures are too large for their architectural setting, it was nevertheless a significant achievement for Duccio who was the first to demonstrate this new kind of picture space.
Slightly younger than Duccio, Giotto carries Duccio’s perspective further. Though the viewer is not placed directly into a room like in Duccio’s Last Supper, there is definitely an architectural setting that encloses Jesus and the disciples. Moreover, Giotto has kept the table and the figures seated at it in one consistent perspective so that it feels real and substantial. This perspective can be seen in everything from the oval shaped halo of the disciple on the far right, top bench to the legs of the wooden bench at the bottom of the fresco that recede back into space. In contrast to the ambiguous setting of the figures in Duccio’s Last Supper, in Giotto’s it is they who define the space. Here it is the architectural setting that is less definitive of the two; the post marking where the back of the room should be appears directly next to the end of the wooden bench at the “closer” side of the room.
Duccio and Giotto both convey the scene of the Last Supper with success and mastery, though they use different techniques to accomplish those ends. Duccio draws more from the Byzantine tradition that was experiencing a revival for more of his lifetime. Though first to introduce the new concept of enclosing figures in an architectural setting, a new picture space, it was the younger Giotto who carried the idea of a spatial setting further. Giotto however, made his figures the creators of such depth and simplified them to produce a more dramatic clarity. Both works are important as different interpretations of the Last Supper and are precedents to the famous rebirth that was to come approximately a century later.