My favorite part of this NY Times story about filmmaker Peter Greenaway’s “dazzling confection” Leonardo’s Last Supper––wherin he “enhanced” the original painting for one night only by introducing sweeping lights, “rhythmic” music, and the generally ill-advised planetarium aesthetics––is the explanation of why the event almost didn’t happen:

A vigorous debate erupted earlier this year after some art historians recommended that Mr. Greenaway be denied access to “The Last Supper.” They feared for the well-being of the painting, which began to deteriorate only 20 years after its completion in 1498.

Cultural officials also objected to what they saw as the improper use of a monument with an intrinsic universal value…“I don’t know why we would allow anyone to run the risk of possibly damaging a work of art in which the Italian state has invested a huge number of resources in the last 20 years,” said Marisa Dalai Emiliani, one expert who opposed the project.

While champions insisted that the project would lend new meaning to Leonardo’s painting, she said, “ ‘The Last Supper’ doesn’t need any added value.”

I’m no expert, but from the writeups of the event and the above, frustratingly unprofessional video document, it sounds like the worst fears of Emiliani and friends were justified.

…Read more