Rembrandt’s "Supper at Emmaus"

 

One way to think about painting in the Baroque period is to see it as something that could, in some ways, represent the artist’s own ideas, feelings, or beliefs—even if it wasn’t officially a self-portrait. A useful example of this is to compare Rembrandt’s Supper at Emmaus with Caravaggio’s version of the same story. Rembrandt actually painted several versions of the Supper at Emmaus, and they’re all much smaller in size than Caravaggio’s large painting.

Both of these works show the same biblical moment, the story of the Supper at Emmaus, which comes from the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament. It takes place shortly after Jesus has been buried. Two of his followers are walking to a town called Emmaus when they meet someone who seems like a stranger. They talk along the way and invite him to join them for a meal at an inn. During dinner, this man says grace, and that’s when they suddenly realize he is actually Jesus. In the story, Jesus then disappears. This moment—when the disciples recognize Jesus just before he vanishes—is the scene that both artists painted.

Rembrandt’s version is on the left and Caravaggio’s is on the right. Rembrandt borrows the basic setup from Caravaggio, but the way he paints the scene feels rougher and a little more subtle. Both artists use similar colors—earthy tones, strong shadows, and sharp light—but Rembrandt handles the lighting in a different way. Caravaggio uses a dramatic chiaroscuro effect, with heavy contrast between light and dark that spreads across the scene in a theatrical way. Rembrandt’s light feels softer and more diffused, focused more on gesture than on theatrical shadow.

Both paintings show Jesus as the central figure at the table, but Rembrandt places him just slightly off center. Instead of being lit from above, the light in Rembrandt’s painting seems to come from Jesus himself, glowing outward. This changes the focus of the scene. The right side of the painting fades into shadow, which creates a strong diagonal line across the canvas. This kind of diagonal structure shows up in both Caravaggio and Rembrandt’s work and reflects a common Baroque approach to composition—using movement and asymmetry rather than balance or symmetry, which were more common in earlier periods.

Caravaggio, in his Supper at Emmaus, likely based his composition on Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper. You can see similarities, as in how some figures turn away from the viewer and how the central figure sits in the middle of the composition. Rembrandt uses a similar arrangement but changes the center of gravity by shifting Jesus slightly to the left. In both paintings, Jesus is seated with two disciples, and the moment of recognition becomes the emotional core of the image.

Rembrandt's paintings are usually smaller than those made by Caravaggio or Peter Paul Rubens. While he did paint some larger works, most of his paintings are what we’d now call easel-sized, usually under 30 inches tall or wide. There are a couple of practical reasons for this. First, it was expensive to make big paintings, especially without a commission, and storing them wasn’t easy. Second, smaller paintings were easier to hang in people’s homes. They were more personal. Paintings like these were meant to be looked at up close, and they invited viewers to think about how the story might apply to their own lives.

That idea of intimacy comes up a lot in Rembrandt’s work. His religious paintings often feel like private moments rather than public displays. They act like devotional objects—meant to be quietly studied and reflected on. The viewer is meant to imagine themselves in the story, almost as if they’re present at the scene.

This kind of thinking was common in the 1600s, especially during the Reformation. Protestant leaders like Martin Luther encouraged people to read the Bible on their own and think about how religious teachings connected to their everyday lives. You can see that in how Rembrandt tells stories—he paints scenes not as grand public events, but as something quiet and personal, like it’s meant for a small group or a single viewer. This approach also shows up in the work of artists like Vermeer, who painted domestic interiors that also seem to invite private reflection.

Rembrandt is sometimes described as a caravaggisto, which just means someone influenced by Caravaggio’s style. You can see this in the way he paints The Supper at Emmaus. His versions definitely follow some of the same setup that Caravaggio used, especially in how the figures are arranged around the table and how light is used to highlight reactions. But Rembrandt also shifts away from Caravaggio’s approach in some clear ways.

 

In his 1629 version of The Supper at Emmaus, Rembrandt adds more depth to the scene. The space goes much farther back than what you see in Caravaggio’s work. There’s a figure way in the background, most likely someone working in the kitchen. This person is lit from behind by a candle, and the area around them is kind of hazy, but you can still pick out some architectural details in the background.

One of the more innovative things Rembrandt does differently here are some changes to how he handles light. In Caravaggio’s paintings the light source is outside of the picture but in Rembrandt’s painting, he brings the light source inside its boundaries.

In the 1600s and 1700s, it would’ve been normal for people to use candles or oil lamps for light. If someone sat with a lamp or candle behind them, their face and figure would be in shadow, and they’d show up more like a silhouette. Rembrandt uses this effect in the painting. He puts Jesus in front of the light source, so his face is and figure are a silhouetted profile.  Cince the light source is on the table behind him and in front of the other figure seated at the table lights the person sitting across from the front right at a sharp angle—what’s called raking light—which helps show their reaction clearly. This lighting choice lets Rembrandt show two different effects from the same source, and it’s a pretty direct observation of how real lighting works in a dark interior.

Come and study with me.  Videos, study guides, and online texts.

https://www.udemy.com/user/kenneymencher/

 

The Aqua Appia

The Aqua Appia was the first aqueduct of ancient Rome, constructed in 312 B.C. by Appius Claudius Caecus, a Roman censor known for his focus on infrastructure and state improvement. The project was financed and initiated under his authority as patron, reflecting the growing needs of the Roman Republic for a sustainable water supply to support its expanding population. The aqueduct was in the region of Latium, running through the countryside into the city of Rome. It belongs to the Roman Republic period, a time marked by practical engineering and utilitarian architecture.

The Aqua Appia was Rome’s first aqueduct, it brought fresh water into the city from springs located near the Alban Hills to the southeast. It stretched about 10 miles and ran mostly underground, protecting the water supply from contamination and sabotage supplying a reliable source of clean water for public fountains and baths, ensuring the population had access to drinking water and sanitation.  Although most of it is underground it uses of arches at its visible points, particularly where it crossed valleys or uneven terrain. These arches, constructed with local stone and concrete, are a Roman are an impressive leap in engineering from the earlier Etruscan arches.  They can span wide spaces, use economical materials, and are sturdy.  They show and understanding of physics. While the Romans are known for their arches, aqueducts, and plumbing, they got the arches, bridges by copying the Etruscans.  Other earlier civilizations, such as the Minoans, had aqueducts and plumbing too.  

The materials included stone and Roman concrete (opus caementicium), a mixture of lime, volcanic ash, and rubble, which was revolutionary in its durability and flexibility. The construction lacked overt decorative elements such as columns or capitals, as its purpose was entirely functional rather than aesthetic, however, arches will become a symbol of Roman technology. Arches will be used later as symbols of victory. 

The interior, though inaccessible in most areas, was a narrow conduit designed for the transportation of water. It operated on a gravity-fed system, with a gentle gradient allowing water to flow steadily into the city. This simplicity and order in its engineering demonstrate the Romans' focus on functional design and pragmatic logic.

Historically, the Aqua Appia was a response to the growing demand for a reliable water supply in the city of Rome. Its construction signaled a shift in Roman priorities toward urban development and public welfare. Today, much of the aqueduct is no longer operational, though some sections have been studied and restored by archaeologists and historians. Parts of it were discovered during excavations in the 19th and 20th centuries, revealing insights into its construction and route. Restoration efforts have focused on preserving its remaining segments, allowing modern audiences to appreciate the ingenuity of Roman engineering.

Study with me here,

https://www.udemy.com/user/kenneymencher/

 

Annibale Carracci The Farnese ceiling- 1597-1601 depicting the Loves of the Gods, ceiling frescoes in the Gallery, Palazzo Farnese, Rome.

     

Around the turn of the 1600s, a group of painters known as the Carracci were active in Italy, mostly in Bologna and Rome. This family workshop included Annibale Carracci, his brother Agostino, and their cousin Ludovico. Their work sits right on the edge between two periods: the late Mannerist style and the early Baroque. Some historians, like Marilyn Stokstad, categorize them firmly as Baroque artists, since most of their major projects happened right around 1600, which is generally considered the beginning of the Baroque era. For reference, the Baroque period usually spans from around 1600 to 1750, while the Renaissance is often said to begin with Giotto around 1300 and end around 1600.

The fresco was made for the Palazzo Farnese, which is a big Renaissance palace in the center of Rome, near the Tiber River. It was built for the Farnese family, one of the wealthiest and most powerful families of the time. The palace later became a kind of headquarters for French ambassadors, but in Carracci’s time, it was the home of Cardinal Odoardo Farnese. He was the patron of the fresco.

Cardinal Odoardo hired Carracci to paint the ceiling of a long upstairs room called the Galleria. This room opened onto a balcony and was used for gatherings and events. The fresco is called The Loves of the Gods. It shows scenes from ancient Roman mythology based on the writings of Ovid, a Roman poet. These scenes were not from the Bible. They were mythological, which was common in private art commissions, especially for people who wanted to show that they were educated in classical literature. At the same time, Church leaders were careful about what kinds of stories were told in religious spaces, but homes of cardinals often included both religious and classical themes.

One of the stories people sometimes talk about is how Carracci’s style was seen as a new direction for ceiling painting. He used a quadro riportato technique, where each scene looks like a framed painting on the ceiling instead of blending into the architecture. This was different from what Michelangelo had done on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, where the figures seem to float in space. Carracci’s style was more like looking up at paintings hanging above.

The ceiling is titled The Loves of the Gods, which tells us that the subject is not Christian. It’s based on stories from ancient mythology and shows different romantic or sexual encounters between gods. The painted scenes include many nude or partially nude figures, often shown in pairs. Surrounding them are small winged children called putti, which were commonly used in Renaissance and Baroque art to suggest love or playfulness. The lighting in the paintings is designed to match the natural light that would fall into the room, which helps the painted architecture blend with the actual space.

Carracci built on Michelangelo’s ceiling from the Sistine Chapel but added more complexity and visual effects, like painted frames and elaborate trompe l’oeil (illusionistic) details that make the ceiling appear like sculpted architecture. His figures are muscular and dynamic, similar to Michelangelo’s, and sometimes exaggerated in the same way. He was referencing and reworking Michelangelo’s style, especially in the way bodies are shown and arranged.

The overall mood of Carracci’s ceiling is sensual rather than moral. This separates it from earlier Renaissance ideals, especially those from 14th- and 15th-century Florence, where scholars and artists believed that studying humanities—like literature, history, and philosophy—would lead people to become more virtuous and wise. That kind of learning was closely tied to Christianity at the time. In contrast, The Loves of the Gods focuses on pleasure and mythology without trying to teach a religious lesson.

Carracci’s approach shares something with earlier artists like Correggio, who also painted mythological scenes with erotic overtones. One of Correggio’s famous paintings is Jupiter and Io, which shows the god Jupiter seducing the mortal woman Io. Paintings like these were often more about celebrating beauty or storytelling than promoting spiritual values.

Art historian Leo Steinberg introduced a theory called the “slung leg theory,” which he explained in a book. The idea is that when you see one person’s leg draped over another person in a painting, it’s a sign that the artist is suggesting sexual activity. In Carracci’s ceiling, there are several examples of this pose, such as in the scene with Venus and Anchises. The specific myth being illustrated doesn’t always matter—in many cases, these stories were chosen mostly as an excuse to paint sensual images.

One scene includes a male nude that looks like it was directly inspired by a figure from Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. Carracci borrowed poses and figure types but reworked them in a mythological setting instead of a biblical one. So while he was still drawing on Renaissance art, he was also helping shift painting toward the Baroque period, which often emphasized movement, emotion, and theatricality.

 

Videos, study guides, and etexts.

Study with me here:

https://www.udemy.com/user/kenneymencher/