Caravaggio: Making a name for himself in Rome

The recent Caravaggio 2025 Exhibition at Palazzo Barberini in Rome curated the offerings on show into four major categories:(i) Making a Name in Rome; (ii) Invigorating the Dark Shadows; (iii) The Sacred and the Tragic Between Rome and Naples; and (iv) Endgame. I will arrange the Caravaggio paintings that I have personally seen over the course of the past year accordingly, beginning (in this post) with the first category.

Caravaggio was born in Milan but his family moved to Caravaggio, a little town in the north of Italy, to escape the plague (At this time the commune of Caravaggio was considered Venetian territory.). Caravaggio studied painting during his youth and his teacher was Simone Peterzano, one of the last students of the Venetian great Titian.

Caravaggio left his hometown in 1592 and made his way to Milan. Once there, he found it to be a "dog-eat-dog" environment and he got off to a quite rocky start. He was, like many other aspiring painters, forced to parade around the Piazza Navona with his works hung around him -- in sandwich-board fashion -- hoping that someone would notice his work and favor him with their patronage. 

According to Caravaggio 2025, starting in the summer of his arrival, Caravaggio moved to the workshop of the painter Guiseppe Cesari d'Arpino where he was "engaged in painting flowers and fruits." The partnership ended abruptly after 8 months. The work he did at d'Arpino's shop is reflected in the prominence of fruits and/or leaves in many of Caravaggio's early paintings.

Caravaggio's hunt for a patron bore fruit when he was "discovered" by Cardinal Francisco Maria del Monte, a close ally of the Medici family and, at that time, residing in the nearby Medici Palace. Based on the Cardinal's invitation, Caravaggio moved into the upper floors of the palace and produced most of his early works therein.

Now onto some of those early works.

One of Caravaggio's earliest paintings from his time in Rome is Boy Peeling Fruit. According to sources cited by the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, this piece was painted during the time that Caravaggio stayed with Monsignor Pandolfo Pucci, a prelate from Recanati. The first reliable record of this piece's provenance was its mention in the inventory of James II of England.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Boy Peeling Fruit, c. 1592 - 93
(Royal Collection Trust, UK; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

According to Dr Ruggiero (a Renaissance expert), Caravaggio fell ill and did a self-portrait (Sick Bacchus) to pass the time. While the grapes and laurel conjures up Bacchus to one's senses, Dr. Ruggiero points out that the laurel is made from Ivy -- rather than  grape -- leaves. In the ancient world, poets were pale (because of the time they spent indoors) and wore ivy crowns. This, then, could have been Caravaggio depicting himself as a visual poet (painter).

Most art at this time still looked like the art of Michelangelo -- bright colors of superhuman forms -- but the art in Sick Bacchus was markedly different. As Dr. Ruggiero described it, the composition was right in your face with the table in the foreground, the subject in the mid-ground, and no background to speak of. Caravaggio learned this compositional style from Venetian artists.

There is some confusion around this painting. According to Caravaggio.com, the painter completed this work in 1593 while he was working in d'Arpino's studio. According to one source he was recovering from a bout of malaria while another says that he was a victim of a kick from a horse. The Journal of the Royal Society attributes the painter's pallor to the effects of jaundice. Dr. Ruggiero agrees with the 1593 date. Villa Borghese, the home of the painting, lists the date as 1595 while the Caravaggio 2025 exhibit lists it as 1595 - 96. 

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Self portrait as Bacchus (known as Sick Bacchus),
c. 1593
(Galleria Borghese, Rome; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

While Boy Bitten by a Lizard does not yet manifest Caravaggio's signature chiaroscuoro, it does capture his ability to register a single point in time and centers flowers and leaves in a prominent still life. 

This painting was, according to Caravaggio's biographers, most certainly made for the open market, rather than for a specific patron. Many early 17th century copies of this painting exist "including a high-quality replica" at the Fondazione Longhi (Florence) which is thought to some to be from the hands of Caravaggio himself.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Boy Bitten by a Lizard, c. 1594 - 95
(National Gallery, London; viewed in situ
12/5/24)

The Fortune Teller "portrays a cunning Gypsy as she reads the palm of a naive young fellow, who, gazing into the woman's face, fails to realize that she is about to steal his precious ring." This light, bright painting is almost the antithesis of the Caravaggio works that we have come to know and love. This painting was part of Cardinal Monte's collection and was subsequently acquired by Carlo Emanuele Pio (along with St John the Baptist) in 1628.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Fortune Teller, c. 1596 - 97
(Musei Capitolini - Pinacoteca Capitolina, Rome; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

Similar to Fortune Teller in both airiness and underlying lack of morals, The Cardsharps was one of the first Caravaggio's to be purchased by Cardinal Monte. Referred to as The Game in early sources, this painting was acquired by Cardinal Antonio Barberini upon Monte's death.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, The Cardsharps, 
c. 1596 - 97
(Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

Caravaggio painted from live models; he did not do any drawings or other preparatory work. If he was dissatisfied with a painting, or a part of a painting, he simply painted over the offending area. His backgrounds at this time were mostly neutral.

The model in The Musicians (called Concert at the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition) is Mario Minniti, a young Sicilian painter with whom Caravaggio, according to Dr. Ruggerio, had an amorous relationship. This painting was done for Cardinal Monte, the first of a number. Caravaggio is the figure in the background. 

This painting was also acquired by Cardinal Barberini upon Monte's death.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
The Musicians, 1597
(National Gallery, Washington, DC; viewed in situ
8/5/25)

Narcissus is the youngest painting in this category and breaks from the others with its dark background and, with reflection, foreground. According to Caravaggio 2025, this is "one of the most debated paintings in the Caravaggio catalogue." Those who initially attributed the painting to Caravaggio, gave a date of 1590 - 95 but, more recently, persons willing to attribute will give a date from 1597 - 99 while others question whether this is even a Caravaggio at all.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio,
Narcissus, 1597 - 99
(Gallerie Nazionale di Arte Antica,
Palazzo Barberini, Rome; viewed at
Caravaggio 2025 exhibition, 7/18/25)

**********************************************************************************************************

Up until this time, all of Caravaggio's commissions had been small and from private sources. His first major contract was in 1602 with the family of Cardinal Mateo Contarelli. The contract called for Caravaggio to paint the walls of the family chapel at San Luigi Dei Francesi. Carravagio was not supposed to paint the altarpiece (it was supposed to be a sculpture) but the family was so impressed with the work that he did on the walls that they asked him to do that also.

By this time Carravaggio had gained critical and popular acclaim. He followed up the Contrarelli Chapel with a commission for the Cerasi Chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome.

I will continue this series with the works falling into the category Invigorating the Dark Shadows.

©EverythingElse238

A survey of the most renowned Supper at Emmaus works

My recent exploration of the two versions of Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus launched me on a quest for other treatments of the same subject. And boy did I find a bounty of material from historically famous painters. Herein I present some of the more notable treatments.

Titian

I was able to locate three separate Supper at Emmaus paintings by this world-famous artist: a 1534 version resident in the Walker Art Gallery; a 1533 - 34 version resident in the Louvre: and a 1545 version resident in the National Gallery of Ireland. As shown below, the compositions of the first two are fairly similar with differences restricted to color schemes, tablescape, deployment of the rightmost disciple, and background construct.

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1534 (Walker Art Gallery)

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1533 - 1534 (Louvre)

In the Walker painting, broad bean pods and bright blue borage flowers are scattered across the table.. At the time broad beans were considered peasant food and was typically served to poor pilgrims on their travels. This combination, though, may reflect a Venetian custom of eating candied broad beans at the Feast of the Dead on All Saints Day. Broad beans were thought to possess the souls of the dead while the borage , which was traditionally used to freshen wine, was believed to drive away sadness and usher in joy.

The 1545 version of the painting is positioned within a closer, darker space with a setting sun as a backdrop. The Innkeeper is omitted from this version. The smaller table makes for a more intimate environment.

Titian, Supper at Emmaus, 1545
(National Gallery of Ireland)

Veronese

Veronese has two versions of the painting on offer. His 1559 version is one of the most populated that I have encountered on this journey. The painting has a flashback to the preceding journey in the left panel and adults and children dressed in contemporary clothing arrayed around the central players. This is most likely a family portrait. The 1565 - 70 version is much less populated but still has seven adults, one kid, and a dog.

Paolo Veronese, Supper at Emmaus, 1559 (Louvre)

Paolo Veronese, Supper at Emmaus, 1565 - 1570
(Museum Boijmans van Beuningen)

Velázquez

One of the more claustrophobic renditions with tight quarters and no extraneous material. According to one source, Velázquez has followed Caravaggio in that his models are presented with "rustic, unidealized features.” This painting explores contrasts in reactions through "gesture, expression, and dramatic lighting." The tablecloth shows the artists still-life skills.

Velázquez, The Supper at Emmaus, 1622 - 1623
(The Met)

Rembrandt

A total of four Rembrandts covering the subject topic are presented in this survey. The 1628 effort (immediately below) has a strong contra-jure effect with the light source placed behind the subject turning it into a silhouette and undelining Jesus' divinity.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1628
(Musée Jacquemart André)

The 1654 version is a print.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1654
(Print, Metropolitan Museum of Art)

The 1648 version is one of the best of the lot, suffused as it is with serenity. The waiter has a contemporary look. This, the most famous of Rembrandt's efforts on the topic, has the second disciple kneeling at Jesus' feet and the white tablecloth serving as a partial overlay to a more extensive tablecloth.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, 1648
(Musée du Louvre)

The 1649 version is very dramatic with a radiant light source emanating from Jesus himself. The limited color palette ensured that the viewer focused on the narrative and emotional resonance rather than color schemes.

Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus, 1649
(Fitzwilliam Museum)

Pontorno

This painting utilizes the chiaroscuoro effect and a high light source for visual impact. A beam of light illuminating Jesus' face indicates the moment of the revelation. 

This piece was inspired by Dürer's treatment (discussed later) and was originally commissioned by prior Leonardo Buonafede of the Charterhouse in Certosa del Galluzzo for placement in its guest quarters. In addition to Jesus and the Disciples, the monks of the Charterhouse are seen emerging from the dark background to bear witness to the event. It is thought that the figure to the right of Jesus is the Prior.

Pontorno, Supper at Emmaus, 1525
(Uffizi)

Rubens

Typical full-figured Rubens bodies. Open architecture and background landscape lends an Italianate look to the painting. This was acquired for Felipe IV at the 1640 auction of Rubens' belongings.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1638
(Prado)

Albrecht Durer

Durer's Emmaus print was one of 36 woodcuts which comprised a series called Small Passions. By far the most flamboyant portrayal of Cleopas who is dressed as a Renaissance traveler. As in the case of Rembrandt's 1649 effort, Jesus is backlit but not so much as to provide the contra-jure effect that is present in the same painter's 1628 effort. Other persons are inserted into the background, a la Pontorno, and Dürer's monogram is visible on the side of the bench facing the viewer.

Albrecht Dürer, Supper at Emmaus, 1511
(National Museum of American History)

Bassano

This was an especially baffling painting for me. First, the full table seems to positioned between Jesus and the disciples; that is, they are not sitting at the sides of the table but at the end. Second, Jesus seems to be sitting uphill of the disciples. Third, the Disciple on the right is showing an unprecedented amount of skin. The dog in the picture looks like and over-sized cat and the cat looks like a rat. The knife in the still life is hanging precariously over the edge.The message is lost in the oddities of the painting.

Jacopo Bassano, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1538
(Kimbell Art Museum)

Tintoretto

According to the museum, the basic composition of this painting conforms to High Renaissance norms:

• The scene takes place in an enclosed space parallel to the picture plane, defined by a checkered stone floor across the foreground
• Christ's place on the central axis is reiterated by the column over his head and the corner of the table
• The two groups of three figures flanking Christ are regulated by the classical system of contrasting counterbalances.

Tintoretto, The Supper at Emmaus, c. 1542
(Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest)

Francesco de Zurburán

Akin to the Velazquez piece, in terms of population paucity. Play of dark and light with the light source somewhere over the shoulder of the leftmost disciple. Orderly arrangement of the still-life components. Focus on the meal and the "men."

Francisco de Zurbarán, Dinner at Emmaus, 1639
(Museo Nacional de San Carlo)

******************************************************************************

This survey was prompted by curiosity emanating from my recent work comparing Caravaggio’s two treatments of the subject topic. Who else had treated this subject? How had they approached it?

This survey covered 16 artworks from 10 artists with Rembrandt (four), Titian (three), and Veronese (two) contributing multiple pieces to the effort. 

The core of the story is Jesus and the two disciples. Some of the efforts limited themselves to that while others extended to include patrons (Pontorno) and family portraits (Veronese).

A broad variety of approaches and techniques were employed by these leading lights of the painting world but they each succeeded in effectively communicating this simple yet powerful story.

Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus: An examination of the 1601 and 1606 versions

Caravaggio's painting style and personal predilections have always been intriguing to me. I have written on his life in this blog and have posted many detailed analyses on individual paintings on my Facebook page. I had done one such analysis on his 1601 painting titled Supper at Emmaus and was slightly taken aback to see another version of that painting at the exhibition titled Caravaggio which was recently held at Rome's Palazzo Barberini. I explore the differences between the two representations in this post.

The backstory remains the same. Two of Jesus' disciples were walking to Emmaus and are joined by a third traveler. This traveler is Jesus but he remains unrecognized until he reveals himself to the disciples while they are having dinner at an Inn in the town of Emmaus. Both paintings attempt to capture this moment in time.

According to the National Gallery, the 1601 effort was "painted at the height of Caravaggio's fame," was recorded at the Villa Borghese (Rome) in 1650 (likely having been in the collection of Cardinal Scipione Borghese, who died in 1633), and listed in a Borghese inventory of 1693.

The museum sees the painting as "among his most impressive domestic religious pictures." The symbolism associated with the painting is illustrated below.

The 1606 rendition was painted after Caravaggio's flight from Rome to Naples to escape the consequences of murdering Ranuccio Tomassoni. The painting appears in the inventory of Palazzo Patrizi in 1624 (valued at 300 scudi). It was acquired by Pinocoteca Brera in 1939 and resides there to this day.

The technique, approach, representations, light, and color have all been toned down, according to godwhospeaks.uk, because of:

• The ascetic influence of his patron Cardinal Mattei
• A now-precarious existence (and the mental weight that came along with that)
• Having to paint without a studio or sufficient material.

The main differences between the two paintings are captured in the annotated 1606 representation presented below.

One source sees the Milan (1606) Emmaus as a "sad picture, drained of the dynamism of the earlier version." The London Emmaus is seen as bold, with powerful protagonists and a deliberately forceful impact. The Milan Emmaus, on the other hand, was viewed as more withdrawn, with figures no longer bursting out of the canvas.

In my view, the 1606 version is a clear reflection of where Caravaggio was in his life. The worry lines on the forheads of the Innkeeper and his wife(?) are pretty telling and that sense of worry and doom and gloom pervades the face of Jesus and the overall environment. If the 1601 version was painted at the peak of Caravaggio's career (as per the National Gallery), then the Milan version was painted at the low mental point of his life.

A comparison of The Florentine Pietà (Michelangelo, c.1547 - 1555) and Jenny Saville's Pietà I (2019 - 2021)

Jenny Saville's current retrospective at the UKs National Portrait Gallery (NPG) includes a piece titled Pietà I which, according to the accompanying description, was a response to Michelangelo's marble sculpture The Deposition (c. 1547 - 1555; also called the Bandini Pietà, The Florentine Pietà, and The Lamentation over the Dead Christ). I discuss the inspirational work as well as the genesis and execution of Ms. Saville's response. Both pieces are depicted below.

The sculpting of The Deposition was initiated after Michelangelo's 75th birthday with the finished product destined for his family tomb as "a memorial for himself and his family." It is carved from a single block of marble and depicts four individuals: (i) the dead body of Jesus (lowered from the Cross but prior to embalming); (ii) Nicodemus (or, possibly Joseph of Arimethia; assumed to be carved as a self-portrait of Michelangelo himself); (iii) the Virgin Mary; and (iv) Mary Magdalene (staring out at the viewer). In order to fit four figures into this single block of marble, Michelangelo had to compress the figures and resorted to techniques such as the effects of distortion and foreshortening -- practices common in painting but not in sculpture.

For reasons unknown, Michelangelo took a hammer to the sculpture prior to its completion, damaging Christ's left arm and leg and "removing several parts ..." He gave the damaged sculpture to a to a wealthy businessman named Francesco Bandini (origin of the name Bandini Pietà). Knowing of the working and professional relationship between Michelangelo and one Tiberio Calcagno, Bandini hired the latter to complete the sculpture. Calcagno repaired the hammer damage by reattaching the broken parts (with the exception of the left leg) and completed the sculpting of Mary Magdalene (note the textural difference between the Magdalene and the other figures).

The Bandini family sold the sculpture to Cosimo III in 1680. It currently resides in Il Grande Museo del Duomo in Florence (origin of the name The Florentine Pietà).

Jenny Saville, according to exhibition literature,

... is one of the world's foremost contemporary painters who rose to prominence in the early 1990s following her acclaimed degree show at the Glasgow School of Art.

In subsequent years, she has played a leading role in the reinvigoration of figurative painting ... Her ability to create visceral portraits from various layers of paint reveals an artist with a deep passion for the painting process itself.

In a 2021 exhibition curated by Sergio Risaliti, director of Florence's Museo Novocento, Seville's works (prior as well as purpose-built) were paired with works from Italian Renaissance artists and displayed at the Museo Novocento, Museo di Palazzo Vecchio, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Museo degli Innocente, and the Museo di Casa Buonarroti. Seville created Pietà I to accompany the Bandini Pietà at the Museo dell'Opera di Duomo. 

Seville was able to study the Bandini Pietà onsite and, during one of her visits, spoke with the conservationists who were cleaning the marble. She was able to gain new insights from those conversations which informed and inspired her efforts on the project.

Pietà I was displayed alongside the Bandini Pietà during the exhibition. The paining -- charcoal and pastel on a 9-foot-high raw canvas -- displays one fleshy, contemporarily garbed individual supine in the lap of one or more of a set of undefined bodies attached to a fan of five heads. The painting is titled Pietà I but a Pietà is defined as a picture or sculpture of the Virgin Mary holding the dead body of the Christ either on her lap or in her arms. It is not clear if the supine body is a modern interpretation of Jesus Christ nor is it clear as to whose lap it occupies. The arms that are embracing the body, with the fingers of the right hand digging into same, appears masculine. According to gagosian.com, this painting offers "a revelatory encounter between the contemporary and the historical."

When viewed side-by-side, Saville's departures from the original are clearly visible:

• The Michelangelo sculpture is pyramidal with Nicodemus' headpiece almost functioning as a capstone. Saville's piece is more fulsome with a protractor shape at its top end. The protractor shape comes into play in the Michelangelo piece at level 2 of the sculpture.
• The Michelangelo piece clearly is telling a biblical story. It is unclear as to whether there is an underlying story in the Saville piece
• Jesus is at the center of the Michelangelo sculpture and his body fits totally within the frame of the piece. The supine body in the Saville piece extends outside the framing provided by the other subjects
• Jesus is emaciated and distorted in the Michelangelo piece. The supine in Saville's pice had not missed many meals
• Clothing in the Michelangelo piece is period-relevant while clothing in the Saville is contemporary to non-existent.
• Only one leg of Jesus is visible in the Bandini Pietà with the other lower-body extremities hidden behind draped clothing. There is a veritable forest of unassociated, tree-trunk-like legs in the Saville piece
• With the exception of Mary Magdalene, who is staring out at the viewer, all eyes in the Michelangelo piece are focused on Jesus. In the Saville piece some eyes are open, some are closed; some heads are turned downwards while other support stares into the great beyond.

As I view these two pieces side by side I get an overarching sense of sadness from the Bandini Pietà but I also get a sense of solidity, firmness, and order. The Saville piece, on the other hand, conjures up words such as ephemeral, confusion, disorder, disarray, lack of control, and search for meaning. I was not very familiar with Ms. Saville's works prior to my visit to the retrospective at the NPG but my interest has now been fully piqued.

Caravaggio 2025 at Rome’s Palazzo Barberini

According to the Caravaggio 2025 exhibition literature, it was 74 years to the day (April 20, 1951) from the initial Caravaggio exhibition to the beginning of the one currently being held at the Palazzo Barberini in Rome.

Palazzo Barberini

The current exhibition was slated to conclude on July 7 but, due to its great success, has been extended for an additional two weeks. I had resisted the temptation to make the trip but once it was extended, I could resist no longer. I visited the exhibition on July 18.

The exhibition included 24 (of approximately 73 undisputed) Caravaggio’s paintings drawn from all corners of the earth. The extended exhibition did not include the Metropolitan Museum’s Concert as it had been previously committed for that period.

The exhibition was spread over four rooms in the museum and was designed to trace the painter’s evolution over the 15-year period covering his arrival in Rome in 1595 and his death in Porto Ercole in 1610.

Each of the works are noteworthy but a few merited especial attention:

• Portrait of Maffeo Barberini (1598 - 1599) — This painting was published by Longhi in 1963 but has never been displayed to the public
• Ecce Homo — this painting was recently rediscovered and, with this exhibition, has returned to Italy after many centuries (patrons were not allowed to take pictures of this painting)
• The first version of the Conversion of Saul for the Cerasi chapel. This painting is not readily accessible to the public as it is privately owned.

Caravaggio, Portrait of Maffeo Barberini,
1598 - 1599 c.

Caravaggio, Conversion of Saul, 1600 - 1601

It was a pleasure to see these works; especially after having seen three of Caravaggio's paintings at the National Gallery 6 months earlier. None of the National Gallery paintings that I had seen were included in the exhibition.

As impressive as the lineup was, there were a few display issues which, in my opinion. somewhat tainted the show. First, the lighting was not up to the standards of a museum exhibiting a blockbuster show. In many cases the viewer had to be positioned “just right” in order to prevent viewing distortions. Second, some paintings were placed at odd angles while other were placed too close together causing interference between groups viewing separate paintings. I brought these two things to them attention of one of the attendants and she said they were aware of these issues.

With my rant out of the way I can get back to the beauty of the worms at hand and how much I enjoyed viewing them. I will be writing more about individual pieces going forward.

A Framework for viewing the works of Frida Kahlo

I have visited a number of Frida Kahlo exhibits over the years with the most recent being the Virginia Museum of Fine Art's Frida: Beyond the Myth. One of the highlights of this exhibition was the display of a timeline highlighting the various periods of the artist's life.

I was able to use this construct to develop trees of the artist's work by period, using images captured during visits to said Virginia Museum, Frist Art Museum (Mexican Modernism), Brooklyn Museum (Frida Kahlo: Appearances can be Deceiving); and National Museum of Women in the Arts (Collection). Those trees are displayed in the charts below.

Some observations:

• A significant percentage of the paintings are portraits (13 of 31)
• There are many more drawings in the early portion of her career than later
• There is great consistency in depiction of her facial features in the portraits
• The first still life observed was Magnolias in 1945. She folllowed with a number of substantive works in that genre in later years
• The 1930s and 40s were her most productive years
• Surrealists wanted to claim her as their own and The Love Embrace of the Universe ..., provides ample evidence as to why.

Piero della Francesca’s Augustinian Altarpiece

 In 1454, Angelo di Giovanni di Simone d'Angelo commissioned a polyptych from Piero della Francesca for the High Altar of St Agostino in Borgo Sansepolchro. The polyptych was intended to fulfill the wishes of his late brother Simone and his widow Giovanna to procure spiritual benefits for the donor and his forbears.

The structural framework of the altarpiece had a history prior to Piero's storied work. The Franciscans had had the structure built in the early 1430s to support paintings by Antonio d'Anghari and Piero had worked with him to gesso the piece. The effort was abandoned after the Franciscans hired Sassetta to do the work instead.

In 1451 the Franciscans sold the framework to Angelo Giovanni di Simone. It was more than 40 years old when Piero began working on it as the mainstay of the Augustinian High Altar. The piece was completed in 1469 and served as the High Altar until it was disassembled in 1555 when the Augustinians moved. The 30 panels were dispersed, with eight currently housed in institutions in Europe and the US.

Previous attempts  have been made to unite the surviving pieces. The most successful, prior to the Poldi Pozzoli effort, was the Frick exhibition which displayed all of the pieces with the exception of the Poldi holding. When the Frick announced its pending closure for renovation, Poldi Pozzoli reached out to that institution and other holders with hosting requests. Those requests were granted and the pieces were reunited in an exhibition at Poldi Pozzi that ran from March 20 to June 24, 2024.