If it helps I think it is John Sonsini
I had to do a bit of research for this one but here is how I would explain it:
In the 17th century, religion was far more important than it is today. It was a vital part of everyday life. Dutch artists would be influenced by the church of England as their artwork, the Church argued, played a key role in guiding the faithful. Art was certainly as important as the written or spoken word - not locked behind any language barrier - and anyone could understand it. Dutch artists had to make their art persuasive: it had to move the faithful (and disbelievers) to feel the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, the suffering of the martyrs, the visions of the saints.
Answer:
Each figure in this painting shows their individualism.
Explanation:
Leonardo's Last Supper depicts the scene of Jesus sharing his final meal with his Apostles before his death and resurrection. The painting is a study of different human emotion, provided in a simple composition. The Last Supper painting describes the response given by apostles when Jesus announced one of them would betray him. All apostles (12) have different responses to the message, with shock and anger. Last Supper is a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance known as one of the best painting in Christian religious art.
Answer:
Architectural talent and an eye for design
Explanation:
Answer:bolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognese
Explanation:bolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognesebolognese
