I read it carefully, and I find some problems. I don't want how is the painting  restoration. I need analysis…. And the compare between  Tintoretto and  Leonard is too little. The introduction of  Tintoretto's Last Super is also too little.

Could you figure out those problems for me please?…

I need you to change those thing…

Actually just these four paragraphs need to be changed.

I mean these four are not what I want… I need some analysis for the painting not how the painting restore..

Like what the symbolic and where the story from.I think you could write more on Tintoretto's Last Super, and do some compare and contrast with Leonard's.

THESE ARE THE PARAGRAPHS 

However, the painting did not adhere properly to the wall according to how Leonardo intention. This is because the painting was done on thin exterior wall, and thus, humidity as intense. Few decades after the completion of the painting, it began to deface and deteriorate. In the beginning of 1517 the painting had began to flake. Sixty years after it was completed, in 1556, the biography of Leonardo, Giorgio Vasari reported the painting to have ruined to an extend that all the figures could not be recognized. In the second half of sixteen century, the painting had completely ruined. By 1768, to protect the painting, a curtain was hung over it. However, the curtain trapped moisture and when it was pulled back, the painting was scratched. In 1726, Michelangelo Bell, who tried to fill in the missing sections using oil paint, made restoration attempts. However, after a short period the repair deteriorated and in 1770, unknown artist, Giuseppe Mazza made another attempt of restoring it. Mezza involved in stripping off work of Bellotti and repainted the painting. He had already redone everything but three faces when he was stopped following public outrage (Wansink, B., & Wansink, 2010).

During the French revolution in 1796, troops, who were opposing clerics, turned the refectory as armory. They destroyed the painting where they scratched out disciples eyes. The refectory was later on used as a prison and it is hardly known whether the prisoners may have further damaged the painting. Stefano Barezzi, who was a experienced expert in removing frescoes, was given the task of removing the painting to safe location. However, he severely destroyed many section of the painting before he realized that the painting was not fresco. Using glue, Barezzi tried to reattach the damaged sections. From 1900 to 1907, Luigi Cavenaghi had through with studying the painting structure and started cleaning it. Oreste Silvestry in 1925 made further cleaning and tried to stabilize some of its parts. In 1943, during the World War II, the refectory was damaged by the allied bombing. The painting was protected with sandbagging, hence it was not struck by splinters of the bomb. However, the bomb vibrations damaged it (Wansink, B., & Wansink, 2010).

From 1952 and 1951, Mauro Pelliccioli undertook to restore the painting. In the late 1970s, the appearance of the painting had deteriorated. From 1979 to 1999, Pinin Brambilla undertook a major of painting restoration. The aim of the project was to enhance stabilization of the painting and repair damages that had had been caused by pollution and dirt. Because it was practically impossible to relocate the painting to a secure place, Brambilla tried to seal the refectory by bricking the windows. A study was carried out with an aim of determining the original form of painting. The researchers used microscopic and reflectoscopy core-sample in their study. However, some of the sections of the painting could not be restored and they were repainted with watercolor (Hall, 2012).

It took 21 years to complete the restoration process and by 1999, the painting was fully restored. To view the painting, it is requirement of the visitors to book ahead and they are only allowed 15 minutes of stay. After being unveiled, the painting attracted widespread controversy with many critics arguing that its tones, color and facial shapes had been altered. For instance, James Beck, who is the professor of visual art at the Columbia University, criticized the restoration of the painting. Michael Daley, who is the ArtWatch International director, has been complaining that the version of the painting is severely altered. For instance, he has been highly critical of right arm of Christ, which he argues has been disguised (Steinberg, 2013).