Comics, Art, & Judaism

Meta-Cosmological Questions: Is God's "Being" a Set of Empty Brackets?

2011-11-11T07:39:00.001-07:00

In the beginning of Vayeira, the Lord appears to Abraham in the form of three men. God's ability to morph into various creatures is something that always surprises me. I've got the bias inside of me that God must be a single "Being", and that a Being is one contiguous shape.

God appeared as three men?Can you regard a society (for example, a group of three men) as a "Being"? I'd always assumed that a "Being" had a contiguous shape... (but I know that that's not true...)

The dictionary defines a "being" as something that "exists". And what exists?

The terms "exist" and "being" define each other: existence is defined as "being"; "being" is defined as "existence". But this creates a logical problem. Does EVERYTHING exist?

Apparently any utterance has some sort of meaning, some sort of "existence" in the "world". Even logical impossibilities can exist, because we recognize them as logical impossibilities, and thus, name them as such.

So, anything that exists can also be regarded as a being unto itself. This would have to include EVERYTHING; if you can name it, then it must exist (in some form or other).

(Before I go any further, I should note that I'm well aware of the accomplishments of philosophers of language, who've clarified that nonsense words don't have the same type of existence as "real" words. Rather, logical impossibilities "subsist" in the world -- a sort of nether region where logical anomalies get to hang out without feeling ostracized...)

But this can't be right, can it? Just because you can NAME something, doesn't mean that that that something actually exists. Then what am I talking about? Even nonsense words, or logical impossibilities EXIST. Why? Because they can be named.

Naming, as we learn from the opening words of Genesis, is a creative act. God spoke...and thus created the World. So here's a logical problem (using the logic of the Bible): what if God says something non-sensical? Is that also an Act of Creation? Yes: God can create logical impossibilities (and even paradoxes) simply by thinking of them!

To clarify: God speaks...(even nonsense terms) and thus CREATES!

What about THINKING? Does that constitute a creative act on God's part? Must thought be verbalized (in the Torah) be have a Creative effect?

For me, it's not clear exactly what constitutes a creative act on God's part.

If I take my cues from the opening lines of Genesis, then God's speech is the engine of Creation; God speaks, and World, with all of it's creatures, suddenly comes into Being. So, getting back to the opening lines of Vayeira, God appears to Abraham in the form of three men. Does that mean that God said to himself, "I am now three men"? Magic doesn't exist (half true; consider Mose's tricks...), but God's ability to do whatever He wants does. He thus has the power to bring into Being anything He can think up. If he can visualize it, it suddenly exists. If He can speak it, it suddenly exists.

All of this talk about the power of talk has got me thinking: Who was God addressing when he made his statement, "Let There Be Light"? Why did He have to say anything at all? Why can't he create via THOUGHT? Must he "speak"? In the cosmic void, who's He talking to...Himself? Where'd He learn how to talk in the first place?

I think I've just caught a glimpse of God. He looks like...a pair of brackets: an empty dynamic category, waiting for you (or Him) to fill the contents...

Kierkegaard's "Akeida" revisited...its a SHIFT in God's Consciousness

2011-08-22T10:31:00.000-07:00

Earlier n this blog, I wrote about Soren Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling", which studies the psychological baggage in the "Akeida" story. My conclusion back then was that Abraham failed God's "test" by agreeing to sacrifice his son, for he could just as easily rejected God's request and still come out looking good, for being a "mentsch". Well...that's what you call "post modern thinking": looking at the situation with the wrong CONTEXT. I now look at the story as being important, for it illustrates the shift in the mind of God...the story of Abraham and Isaac are just SYMPTOMS of what the REAL story is: a shift in the mind of God. Here's my new view on the Akeida (which I'd written as a reply to my earlier post on the subject):

"Lately, I've been having second thoughts about my initial conclusion that Abraham failed the choice, by preparing his son Isaac to be sacrificed. Lately I've been studying Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Olmec, and it appears that they DID use human sacrifice. If you contrast those cultures to the story of the Akeida, I get a different perspective on Abraham: it's necessary for Abraham to prepare for a human sacrifice...but then to be interrupted, having the sacrificial victim spaced, and in his place, a non-human sacrifice is offered up instead. To simply judge Abraham as "wrong" would make sense only if you judge him by TODAY's values. But if you put yourself in the mindset of a pagan worshipper 4,000 years ago, human sacrifice would probably be understood as the way the Universe worked. The Akeida, when looked in its proper historical context, is actually revolutionary in the history of religion. It represents the first nudges towards HUMANISM: the value of human life. While there are still sacrifices, they'll be now be ANIMAL sacrifices...something that we moderns would still recoil from ...

I'd like to cut Abraham some slack. In today's world, his act looks incredibly abusive--and I'm sure it looked that way too way back when. But story is necessary to show the SHIFT away from human sacrifice...and the Akeida gives us a front row seat at the precise moment that that shift happened. Although it's easy to judge Abraham for being a mindless true-believing zealot. But the story isn't really about Abraham, nor is it about Isaac. It's about God. God needs the Akeida to tell the Jews (and thus, all the rest of the World) that human sacrifice is a cruel and unusual way of worshipping the Divine. Although the book first appears a catalogue of horrors, it's actually about a change in consciousness. Even Kierkegaard gets caught up in the psychological dynamics of it all. But I now think that the story is a giant red herring...because the real story isn't about Abraham or Isaac, but rather, a SHIFT in the Mind of God."

(Note: the phrase "Mind of God" is not some cheap effort at appearing "deep"; it is a concept that abounds in the "Zohar" (a classic text in Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism). The sephirot diagram, as it's described in classes in Jewish mysticism at Temple Emanu-el, in Tucson AZ, is a "map of the Mind of God"). Our minds are plastic, and can grow. So why can't God's mind too? Well...it can and does! Exhibit A: the Akeida!)

Moses and his Hulk-like tendency to smash

2011-06-25T21:59:00.000-07:00

Why is Moses so short-tempered? Why does he have to take out his anger on precious objects? We're already familar with his smashing of God's tablets (upon seeng the Israelites dancing around a Golden Calf). Now, in Numbers, we've have the Israelites rebelling against Moses...and again, there's the Hulk-like tendency to smash.

In Numbers 20:2 (in Parshat Chukat) the Israelites are thirsty. They become hostile, and (as it is written) they turned against Moses and Aaron. This provokes Moses to strike the rock of Miraba, which causes water to pour out. The people have water, but Moses falls from grace with God: He’s forbidden from entering into the Promised Land..

I’ve always been bothered by Moses’fate here: I’ve often felt that God was too harsh with Moses, forbidding Moses from entering the Promised, all because he lost his temper and stuck a rock with his staff. It was hot, people were dehydrated and complaining…But on closer reading, I can see that scene is not simply about a leader losing his temper; it’s about ritual impurity, which is the theme that runs thoughout this entire parsha. Let’s look at this scene more closely:

First, as we learned in Leviticus 20:2, the people were without water. They’re probably overheated and dehydrated, being in the desert.

Then, in the next line (Leviticus 20:3), some of the Israelites say something incredible. When complaining to Moses for the lack of water, they say, “if only we had perished when our brothers perished at the instance of the Eternal!”

Perished at the instance of the Eternal? That’s an odd thing for an Israelite to say... unless it’s a clue about how to read what’s coming up next. I think that it’s a reference to the fate of Nadab and Abihu,

In line 20:6, we learn that the setting for this scene is actually before the Tent of Meeting. As it is written, after Moses appeals to God for guidance, God gives Moses these instructions: “You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock, and provide drink the congregation and their beasts”

I think that the proper way to read this scene. is that God is explaining a ritual to Moses. Moses is to perform the ritual, God is to provide water from the rock, and the Israelites would praise God for His blessings.

It doesn’t work out that way. In the very next line, Moses deprives God of the Israelites brucha (for providing water), and also glorifies himself as a magician. Angry with the Israelites for their complaining, Moses says

“Listen, you rebels, shall we get water out of this rock?”, and Moses raised his

hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and their

beasts drank”

When Moses strikes the rock in anger, causing water flow out of it, we’re supposed to look at this as analogous to Aaron’s sons bringing unholy fire into the Temple: it’s a form of ritual impurity. The whole theme of this parsha is issue of ritual impurity

Many commentators have a hard time figuring out why God is so hard on Moses for this incident at the rock. I’d like to suggest that if we view Moses’ angry outburst, and his striking of the rock, as a ritual violation, perhaps that will shed some light on the subject. Moses needs to be a better Moses! Moses not Hulk!

"Inception", Dr. Strange, & Joseph: Three Dream Worlds

2011-03-20T19:42:00.018-07:00

I just saw the movie "Inception", which is about an adventure that takes place in the "dreamworld". It's very much like the old Doctor Strange comics from the 1960's, which had a similar premise: two opposing forces fight it out in dreams. With Doctor Strange (at least in the beginning), troubled people would visit him in his office...but instead of offering psychological counseling or psychoanalysis, he would offer to enter the dream world of his patients by going into a trance, and then visiting his patients demons on their own turf: the world of the dream.

Since Doctor Strange was a Marvel Superhero, he operated within a moral Universe: there was a force of cosmic Good, and a force of cosmic Bad. A superhero battle in the dreamworld of Doctor Strange thus represented a battle between Good Character (or Good Conscience) vs Bad Character (or Bad Conscience). This made Doctor Strange in interesting and compassionate character. Not only that, but Steve Ditko's artwork, which was a mash up of various schools of modern art (e.g. the surrealism of Salvidor Dali, the angular and geometric look of Russian Constructivism, and the graphic sharpness of Pop Art) So how disappointing that "Inception" has no moral core: it's has no heart. The plot involves some thieves who want to enter someones mind not to heal them, but to rip them off. The main character's motivation is to enter someones mind so he can get hold of a combination to a safe. How disappointing. (His secondary motivation is to convince his wife, who thinks that she's living in a bad dream, that she's not in a dream)

Compare the dreaming in "Inception" to incidents of dreaming of Joseph in the Torah. Joseph has several dreams, each which suggests that Joseph has a future of greatness, whereas his brothers do not. This so enrages Joseph's brothers, that they throw him in a pit, with the intent that he die. As it turns out, Joseph IS destined for greatness. He lives to meet his brothers again, this time as a ruler, and to have the chance to take the high road and reconcile with his brothers, who don't recognize him.

In "Inception", as in "Doctor Strange", the dream world is where the action takes place. Most of the movie is spent navigating the layers of the subconscious. It's got the logic of a video game: hit all your targets on one level before moving to the next level (of dreaming). But in the Joseph story, the dreams are incidental: they provide a motivation for his brothers to get jealous and angry, and thus set the story in motion. Although Joseph did have visions of greatness for himself, it didn't involve him achieving it by ripping off someone else.

Did anyone achieve any "wisdom" in Inception? No...it's all about accomplishing a mission. It's a very aggressive movie. In the Torah, when people dream, it's a sign from God; it's a forecast of the future; it's a sort of esoteric wisdom. What about the dreams in Inception? Were they holy?. No, in this movie dreams are induced, forcibly entered, and then exploited.

"Inception" would be far more interesting if it was a movie about sibling rivalry in the dream world. What would "Inception" be like if it used as its source Joseph's dreams of greatness? Suppose that Joseph had his dreams, and then his brothers plotted to enter those dreams in order to extract their revenge,(rather than extracting the ideas out of someone's head) instead of throwing him in a pit? Perhaps Joseph would morph into Doctor Strange, so that he could confront brothers in his dreams. That would be interesting.

Exodus & Eugenics: The Mad Scientist as the new Pharoah archetype

2010-12-20T06:25:00.004-07:00

When reading over parsha Shemot (actually, only the second paragraph, Exodus 1:8 - 1:12), which is the beginning of the Exodus story, I couldn't help feeling that Doctor Sivana (of the old "Captain Marvel" comic book series) is the modern face of Pharoah.

In the 1940's, there was a comic book series called "SHAZAM! The Adventures of Captain Marvel", which featured Billy Batson, Captain Marvel, and his arch enemy, the evil Doctor Sivana. Doctor Savana was continually thinking up plots to take over the world, enslave mankind, and beat Captain Marvel.

How illuminating a costume change can be! Normally, when reading the story of Exodus, I picture Pharoah as an Ancient Egyptian in period clothes: the head dress, the chin beard, the throne... Envisoning Pharoah in that type of get-up keeps our view of Pharoah in the past. But today, in this brilliant and ominous world of science and technology, Pharoah would look much different. Today's Pharoah would be a mad scientist. (Where's the Mad Scientist as a character in today's culture? He seems to be absent) Doctor Sivana, of SHAZAM! fame, fits the bill perfectly; he's concerned with eugenics and a genocidal plot. How thoroughly contemporary.

In this parsha, we see a reversal of fortune for the Jews (or the Israelites, who are the proto-Jews) As it says in the parsha, “A new king arose over Egypt who does not know Joseph”. Immediately I’m suspicious. How could the new king not know Joseph? How could the new king not know the second-in-command in all of Egypt? I’d assumed that at that level of leadership, all of the big players would know each other. But not the new king. So where did he come from? Who was he? I think that there was possibly some sort of coup back then, or at least some bad office politics. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a new king arrives who doesn’t know Joseph?

In the next line, we see that the new king is obsessed with the Jews fertility rate. He doesn’t even regard them as citizens of Egypt. Just look at the language in this line: “And he said to his people, ‘look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with them so they may not increase”. “His people” doesn’t mean us. The king doensn’t even regard the Israelites as citizens of Egypt.

But what’s especially serious in that line I just quoted is that the king hatches a genocide plot to prevent the Israelites from creating successive generations. Notice how the Pharoah says that he must deal shrewdly with the Israelites, so that they may not increase. With the technology at Pharoah’s hands in those Ancient times, eugenics consisted of killing the Israelites male babies by drowning them as they were born, and throwing the fertile males into forced labor camps, inside of a “garrison city”, as it’s stated in this parsha. If Pharoah was alive today, imagine how much more shrewd he could be, with modern methods of making men sterile and women infertile at his disposable: radiation, chemicals, diseases, and other stresses. Men and women who couldn’t conceive would never suspect that Pharoah had a hand in their biological misfortune.

I’m having a hard time getting past the first few lines of this parsha, because it seems impossible that a new king could arise in Egypt without having any knowledge of Joseph. I’m also struggling with Pharoah’s fear of the Israelites. It seems to come from nowhere. Why’s he so afraid?

I’m troubled by Pharoah’s ignorance of Joseph, and his paranoid campaign to wipe out the Israelites. Why's he so afraid of the Israelites? Where’s all of this paranoia coming from? If you imagine Pharoah as Doctor Sivana, the answer becomes clear: Doctor Sivana's afraid that his evil plot will be uncovered!

Doctor Savana: the new archetype for Pharoah??

The Technical Specs of Jacob's Ladder??

2010-11-20T05:10:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about Jacob's dream, where he sees a ladder rising up to Heaven, with angels ascending and descending it. It just struck me: why do angels need a ladder in the first place? Can't they fly? Forgetting that question for a moment, lets consider the technical specifications of a ladder to Heaven.

First of all, without any clarification in the torah, artists are free to imagine what the ladder to Heaven might look like. Artist William Blake created a beautiful painting about Jacob's ladder, but where does it even imply that the ladder is a spiral staircase under a tent?? Nowhere! (Although Blake's work does conjure up a dreamy image that does feel sacred) I , however, would like to examine the ladder as a ladder, without much embellishment. I'd like to consider the ladder as a LADDER! This means that it would look more like something you'd find at Home Depot, rather than at the Guggenheim.

Let's consider some physical facts when trying to visual Jacob's ladder.

Clouds are roughly a mile above the ground : about 6500 feet) (source: here) So, what should we consider when constructing a ladder that's 6500 feet high?

First thing I thought of was "how many rungs are on this ladder?" "How far apart should they be?"

I figured that government engineers might have some standards I could use as a starting point. According to the OSHA website, "The minimum clear distance between the sides of individual-rung/step ladders and the minimum clear distance between the side rails of other fixed ladders shall be 16 inches (41 cm)." (source: here --scroll to 1926.1053(a)(4)(i))

So...the answer to the question, "how many rungs are on the ladder to Heaven" is roughly 4333. (If you assume that the rungs are spaced apart accoring to OSHA standards (i.e. 16 inches apart) AND you take into account the width of each rung (I assumed a 2 -inch rung size), then the formula for number of rungs on the ladder to Heaven becomes...the length of earth to sky (i.e. 78000 inches), DIVIDED BY 18 (i.e. the number of inches from rung-to-rung; 16" being the OSHA standard for distance between ladder rungs + the width of each rung, which I've assumed to be 2 inches) comes out to roughly 4333 rungs.

"This works out my leg muscles real good!" (image source: Comic Book Siddur)

Once I had a clearer vision of what an actual ladder to Heaven would have to require from an engineering standpoint, my vision of what the angels looked like started to change. Initially, a had a sweet vision of fresh faced choir members floating around the ladder, as if they were are all riding an escalator in a department store.

A DRASH OF THE RIDICULOUS: Is there wisdom in laughter?

But as the details of the ladder came into clearer focus (due to my calculations), my impression of angels ascending and descending a ladder changed: I began to imagine what someone climbing up and down a ladder would look like: it's not as graceful as I'd initially imagined! I saw figures holding onto the ladder they would fall, straining to hang on as they strained to get up and down each step. Or do angels show signs of strain at all? My image of angels ascending and descending a ladder to Heaven became more absurd and grotesque, the more literal I tried to make that vision. I also began to worry about someone ascending and descending a ladder which was over a mile high. Yikes!

Jacob's dream had a meaning. So why does its "message" seem to change when I focus on the technical specifications of Jacob's Ladder? Does my turning to OSHA standards make it ridiculous? Maybe...but why? There has go to be SOME specifications for a ladder. I mean, Bezalel was given very specific instructions from G-d re: how to build a tabernacle. So why should a ladder be any different?

Scrolling Illuminated Screens VS. "Torah Interruptus"

2010-09-12T22:20:00.001-07:00

What's worse: reading torah off of an illuminated scrolling computer screen, or out of a traditional paper book? The scrolling screen highlights a problem inherent with practically all prayer books: page turns interrupt kavanah.

Nowadays, we strive to have more kavanh...but apparently it wasn't always that way. The assumption that I've heard from at least one Orthodox Rabbi, is that the closer in time you are to Moses receiving the tablets from God, the more spiritual you are; in the legends of yesteryear, that is when the Jewish people were more spiritual than they were today. Last week, at our Temple's Shabbat service, the rabbi weighed in on the question of "why don't young Jews feel connected to Judaism?" There were a variety of theories, none of which (curiously) actually asked young Jews themselves for their opinion. I have an opinion, and it's based on my own experience. And it doesn't just address the current young generation, but focuses on a problem that has plagued our services for a long time. That is, the interruption. We call ourselves the "People of the Book", but there's a problem with books: they have pages. Every page turn is an interruption. Is it just me? Or am I the only one trying to keep up with the pace of the prayer service, or struggling to find where we are in the prayerbook.

Of course, one could get lost in a torah scroll too (I've seen it happen!), but the one new idea I thought I'd bring to this blog today is: turning pages in a prayerbook creates and interruption in the congregant's concentration. How lovely, a nice collection of prayer books! But if you lose your place, you're kinda stuck...until you find your place again. As I mentioned a moment ago, even if we used scrolls instead of prayer books, we might still lose our place, and this interruption would mess with our kavana.

When I started writing this, I had a grand idea that the interruption of the page-turn is a significant factor in the history of Jewish spirituality...or at least contributed to the current day problem of young Jews not feeling as "Jewish" as their forebears (is this actually true??)

I don't know what to believe. All I know is that this blog has two advantages that a prayerbook doesn't: scrolling text, and an illuminated screen. I feel that this is an important development in the history of Jewish spirituality, but I'm not sure if it's a good development or a bad one.

Why am I even thinking like this? Because the Rabbi mentioned that some congregations ("in California") didn't use a prayerbook at all, but rather, converted their prayer book into a PowerPoint presentation, which included a bouncing ball. I asked the elderly congregant behind what he though of a PowerPoint prayer service; he loved the idea! He could see the words clearly, and you could focus on singing, instead of fussing with the book. I then began to wonder, what's stopping us from doing this at our Temple? We've got the technology. I think one reason is because the image of a book is very precious to us Jews.

Well, I've had some experience bucking tradition in the sacred realm, by writing and publishing the Comic Book Siddur. Just as with the electric nose-hair trimmer, people laughed at first, but then...it caught on! Why? Because it's useful, and people felt that it filled a need. So why do we still use traditional hard cover prayer books, when page turns alone are messing with our kavanah? Why doesn't the Reform movement embrace the PowerPoint Shabbat with open arms and laser pointer? Because we have made idols of books. Isn't there an argument to made that a PowerPoint prayer service is more like the Godly image of "black fire on white fire" because light, after all, is radiant energy, similar to light of a light projector??

If we want to increase kavanah at services, and if we want young Jews to "feel" more Jewish (and thus, cultivate an identification with Judaism and Israel) then we should remove the impediments to kavanah, that is, those things that give us torah interruptus.

Kierkegaard's "Fear & Trembling": Isaac is the real existentialist hero

2010-08-28T21:41:00.001-07:00

After years of hearing about Soren Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", I finally decided to read it, and I found it excellent. This 150 year old book, for those who don't know, is about the Jewish story known as the "Akeida", where God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. I find it very difficult to accept the fact that Abraham "proves" his faith in God by showing that he follows God's command without question. Thus Abraham is held up as a model "believer", as someone who doesn't question God's commands. I'm not the only one who struggles with passage. Kierkegaar'd book "Fear and Trembling" is all about the difficulties with this story. I feel he is a kindred spirit! My commentary here takes its cues from Kierkegaard's focus on Isaac.

Abraham is held up as a virtuous figure, yet we really don't know what kind of struggle he went through to bring himself to do this. But regardless, whatever the moral struggle Abrahem might have had, we know what his decision is: to sacrifice his son. I'll say it plainly: this is the WRONG answer. Abraham failed the test. I'm sure that God would have looked upon Abraham just as favorably had Abraham chosen to SPARE his son. If fact, by agreeing to sacrifice his son, Abraham has proven that he is a pagan. But God's command of Abraham is a test after all, right? Had Abraham rejected God's command that he kill his son, God could have just have easily praised him for his decision; for his independence of judgement, for his compassion, and for his moral courage. But no; Abraham is a lesser man because of his blind obedience.

As we read through the torah, we find plenty of examples where God proves to be open to suggestion. One can only wonder what might have happened had Abraham rejected God's command, or at least tried to strike a deal. My guess is that God would have regotiated with Abraham, saying, "tell you what, Abe, how about if you just sacrifice a ram instead?" Some things we just can't, in good conscience, ask people to do. God's request of Abraham, I feel, falls into that category.
Don't forget that Abraham had his son when he was a very old man. And now, he's commanded to kill his son? It's just gross. What's even more disturbing about this story is that no consideration is given to Isaac. How can Isaac have any faith in God, when God has basically sentenced him to die? And for no fault of Isaac's?

Kierkegaard is often held up an an existentialist writer, and surely, the person who is confronted with the existentialist dilemma is not Abraham, but rather, Isaac. Isaac has to live with the fact that God commanded him to die; not so, Abraham. How is Isaac to live the rest of his life, knowing that he's been used as a pawn by God? Abraham is commanded to kill his son, and he doesn't question it. For that, I feel, he is diminished. Isaac, on the other hand, must muster up the courage to go on with life know that God has singled him out to die (the subject of a cruel "test").
I feel that we could learn a lot if, when studying the Akeida, we focus on the existential predicament of Isaac. If you think about it, Isaac too, has been "chosen" by God. I'd say that Abraham represents the "old" faith (where he's commanded to obey), and Isaac represents the "new"; Isaac has to choose to follow God, when he's been given a really good reason no to.

The Rothko Chapel as a Spirtual Comic Book

2010-07-15T20:35:00.014-07:00

Recently, I went to Houston, TX to see the famous Rothko Chapel: a small, octogonal shaped room, whose walls are covered with massive dark dark paintings by famed minimalist abstract expressionist painter, Mark Rothko. This gallery-in-the-round is intended to have spiritual (if not religious) resonance for anyone who views it, yet the paintings do not contain any specfically religious imagery. In fact, they are pre-religious: they speak for the cosmic silence, the feelings of awe and infinity and vastness of God and the Universe by illustrating...nothing. Nothing but a black void.

When people first see they work, they think that it is black in color, but after you spend time there, you realize that they are very dark shades of green, red, and purple -- it's just that when colors are very dark in tone, the eye initially regards those colors as black. (In the above image, you'll notice that rather than three "black" paintings, there is actually a red painting flanked by two that are darker and more green)

Once you look into the paintings, however, they start to MOVE. There is actually a sensation of roiling movement, as if one is looking into a churning swamp. But what causes this movement on a still painting? At first I thought that there was something being projected on the canvases, say, a "camera obscura" effect from the skylight; perhaps light from outside was projecting movement from clouds and traffic outside down onto the paintings inside the chapel, with the monochromatic paintings serving as a dark movie screen? When I asked a docent/guardian in the chapel anbout this illusions, she suggested that it could be air turbulence from the AIR CONDITIONING!) I realized, after staring at Rothko's massive void-like paintings that the apparant movement in his work was an optical illusiion, caused by our eyes confusing the complimentary colors of green and red at extremely low shades or values, and then trying to make adjustments in order to properly perceive the color. After staring at his paintings at close range, I could see that they were made with layer upon layer of washes of green on red, over and over, back and forth...until the painted surface approached a black color. I hypothesized that when red and green are damped down to an extremely dark color, our eyes experience a sort of color blindness, for at very dark values, we can't distinguish a warm color from a cool color; we can't tell the difference between dark green and dark red. The result: a dark smouldering roiling effect optical effect, similar to clouds of oil spewing from miles down below the ocean's surface. Hard to believe, until you actually experience this optical illusion: it's truely amazing. Then again, it could be just "spiritual mojo", and I'll accept that without argument.

To those who have an interest in comic books, you might notice that the way that Rothko's arranged his massive paintings is similar to a comic strip. You can stand at one side of the room and "read" the paintings in a continous "strip" format. There is a triad of triptychs, at three points in the room; the triptych is a stand comedic comic strip format, in the question-answer-punchline formula. Also, the green and red colors reminded me of 3D comics from the 1950's. His subject matter was spiritual, but his composition was very much like comic book panels--each painting is either a full-page splash panel, or a two-panel page layout, and in the chapel, he's clustered three sets of them into three-panel "strips".

When sitting right upon the three massive paintings at the front of the chapel, I sense that Rothko actually had an impish sense of humor (or enormous feeling for the power of the artist) for at that perspective, sitting on the beanbag cushion on the floor (not pictured), I feel as if I'm sitting in a chapel to ART itself. While there are no religious icons or imagery in the chapel, there are undeniably PAINTINGS in the chapel. The chapel serves as a place to contemplate the infinite, as well as the phenemon of art itself. Is the Rothko chapel thus a place to worship art as ART (i.e. as an honest encounter for what these objects really are (i.e. PAINTINGS), and not as a simulation of an actual void)? Do we encounter the divine as an esthetic experience? Is there something about the three-paneled comic strip style of rhythm at work in Rothko's paintings? The Rothko chapel is undeniably a sacred space: a sacred place for you to fill-in-the-blank.

God's Backside...Revealed! (to Moses)

2010-04-08T17:27:00.001-07:00

Here is a drash that I recently delivered at our Temple:

In the parsha for Pesach (which partially comes from Ki Tissa), I enjoyed how the dialogue between God and Moses felt like two guys haggling. The sounds and scents of the shuk were never too far from my mind as I read though this portion. In parshat Ki Tissa, where God chooses Moses to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land, Moses proves to be suspicious customer.

This parsha starts with God promising freedom, land, and prosperity (“a land of milk and honey”) to the Israelites, but he adds “I will not go in your midst because you are a stiff-necked people.” Incredibly, Moses – that most humble man – is coy about receiving this blessing. He wants God to lead him, even though God has already told Moses that Moses must lead the Israelites himself. So, Moses adds a condition to the deal by asking for a sign from God that God is serious about his choice of Moses. So Moses first tries to make God feel guilty…and it works.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses says to God, (in a voice filled with compassion): “consider that this nation is Your people,” to which God says “I will go in the lead and lighten your burden”. Moses appealed to God, and it paid off! But incredibly, Moses still wasn’t satisfied. He wanted for God to prove his sincerity by showing Moses his presence (as if this conversation between Moses and God wasn’t proof enough). God complies, saying (in line 33:19) “I will make all of my goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim before you the name Lord”. This is another incredible sentence, because God promises Moses two impossible things: a view of God, and the leadership that Moses requested. But God warns Moses to not look Him in the face, lest Moses die.

What fascinates me is what comes next, not for what is said, but for what is implied. God says, in line 33:23,”…you will see my back, but my face must not be seen.” This illustrates two important things: first, that God shows Moses His back! It’s not His face, but it’s definitely something significant. It’s God’s back! That counts as a sighting! Second, if you think about it, God does end up leading Moses, just as Moses had requested; if you’re looking at God’s back, then you must be following God. That is, God walks ahead of you. In other words, He’s leading you. By contrast, if you look God in the face, you’d be confronting God. That is, you’d be stiff-necked, which (as we learned earlier in this parsha) only gets God mad.

Moses does very well in this parsha, vis-à-vis God, as it were. I like how the interaction between God and Moses is so pliable. Although God starts out laying down some hard and fast rules with Moses, I’m impressed and surprised at how quickly God is willing to compromise and negotiate. I like how Moses knows how talk to God.

Balaam's donkey vs. the Golden Calf: A Comparison

2010-03-03T14:56:00.003-07:00

The siddur starts with the prayer "Mah Tovu", which comes from a passage in Numbers where the prophet Balaam, following King Balaks orders, sets out to curse the Israelites. Instead, Adonai changes Balaam's mind...by speaking to him through the mouth of Balaam's ass! (that is, his donkey). Remember this: God speaks to someone through the mouth of a donkey; a talking donkey. Now, flashback to the infamous "Golden Calf" episode in Exodus, where the Israelites create their own idol made of gold. We all know how this turns out: the Israelites are cursed (actually only scolded) for falling back on such a pathetic spiritual crutch, namely, a golden calf.
But let's change one thing: supposed God spoke to the Ancient Israelites through the mouth of the golden calf, and said (with full intent to freak them out), "what are you people doing?? I'm a golden calf! I am not your true God! Get out of here, you bums! You're embarassing me!" What would be their reaction then?
God has shown that he likes to test the Israelites. Imagine how the Israelites might have redeemed themselves by reacting to golden calf that mocks and scolds them, rather than an angry Moses, who destroys the written law at their feet. The possibilities are intriguing.

Doorposts as a Place of Decision

2010-02-11T15:40:00.013-07:00

I've become very intrigued by the symbol of the DOORPOST in the Torah, for it appears to be a symbol of both freedom and servitude. At the doorpost (during the Ten Plagues), we mark our doorpost so that the angel of death will pass over us. At the doorpost (both outside and inside a dwelling) we are to fix a mezzuzah, which contains a passage of Torah scroll which contains a promise to God. And now, in this week's Torah portion, (Mishpatim; Exodus 21:9-24:15) we learn that this is where a slave who doesn't want to be free must proclaim his loyalty and servitude to his master while standing under a doorpost.

From the second paragraph of Exodus 21:5-6, we read that:

"If a slave declares, 'I love my master, and my wife, and my children: I do not wish to go free', his master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall remain a slave for life"

At first I took a modern look at this, envisioning the door as a portal to another world: an entry to a different place. Images of Doctor Strange come to mind! Walking through doorways is a potent symbol; you pass though a doorway, and you are changed; it's a transition. Give that interpretation, it makes sense that a doorway or a doorpost would be a good place to take an oath, with the location adding meaning to the oath.

I was just struck by the fact that doorways have a very serious quality about them: they can lead to good places or bad places; they they symbolize change and transition. So of course, what does this tell us about comics? That the use of the doorway and the doorpost is very potent imagery.

We tend to laugh when we read of another form of Biblical oath-taking: holding the cajones of the oath-taker while uttering a promise (that will make any man suddenly serious), but doorway imagery is very potent. In fact, if you ever want to represent change, or moving to a different place (in all its possibilities and variations) think about doorways and doorposts.

Ya got that...y'awl?

Yitro: the Super-Inlaw

2010-02-09T05:31:00.008-07:00

It's interesting how the actions of a person in a text influence how you visualize that person in your mind's eye. If a person is a magnanimous soul, I picture them as being physically big, strong, and robust! If they take a more subordinate role, I picture them as physically smaller. This is how artists in an earlier time, in the mists of history, pictured groups of people: the more important they were, the bigger they were. The less significant they were, the smaller they appeared. Just imagine the pictures of people swelling, larger or smaller, depending on their importance at any particular moment. If someone is important, they physically grow larger and taller. If they they take a subordinate role, they physically shrink. Form follows function, as they say.

That habit of mind persists in my own visualization of characters when reading the Torah, and this sort of visceral visualization impulse is what I used when creating characters for the Comic Book Siddur.

In the torah portion "Yitro", where Moses' father-in-law gives practical advice to Moses, I had a vision of Yitro being a very strong figure, towering over Moses. Here are some notes I'd written to myself while reading parsha Yitro: "Moses' father-in-law: note the influence of Yitro on Moses' interaction with God. Moses really doesn't interact directly with God alone. He has help from the counsel of Yitro. For example, in line 12 (refer to your Chumash!) Yitro shows Moses about protocol and decorum. It's Yitro who brings the burnt offering and the sacrifices to God. Yitro advices Moses to delegate. Lines 17-27 are amazing. They do away with the "Great Man" theory. God may have chosen Moses, but Yitro helped Moses in an incalculable way by coaching him."

After considering this passage, it becomes clear to me that Moses's talk with God is actually triangulated, for Yitro is in Moses' corner, giving Moses advice on leadership and decorum. Yitro really shines here as a magnanimous soul, for without Yitro at this juncture, Moses could have committed a faux pas. He could have done or said something inappropriate or ridiculous. Yitro explained to Moses how he must interact with God (with appropriate sacrifices), and how to lead the Israelite people (by delegating leadership). It's a testament to the father's-in-law, and it's an acknowlegement that our elders are a repository of wisdom.

It makes you wonder if God chose Moses for Yitro. In my mind's eye, I picture Yitro as tall, muscular, and strong, whereas Moses is less so, only because Moses (at this particular point in Exodus) lacked knowledge and insight in how to be most effective with God, and with the People -- until the appearance of Yitro. It also shows you how the generations really are bound together and are dependent on each other: Moses depends on Yitro for advice, and Yitro depends on Moses to listen to it: yet both are concerned with doing well for those outside of themselves: God and the People of Israel. I find Yitro a fascinating character, and I wish I knew more about him. (But at least you know how I think of him: as a guy who's generosity of spirit causes him to physically grow bigger, as if being inflated with a sort of spiritual gas!)

God's costume? You fool!

2010-02-06T07:49:00.008-07:00

In my last post, I had fun imaging what God's "costume" might be like, if God were a "superhero". I now realize that I have misspoken--it was a fool's quest. If I must represent God as a comic book character, it would be best if God were OUT of the panel. His presence might be implied, or we might even see a speech balloon pointing to the "voice" of God, but there's no need to have that word balloon actually point at a particular form; pointing to place outside of borders of the comic book box goes a long way to preserving the mystery of God. With this convention, we can include God in comics, and not worry about violating the prohibition of creating graven images. In fact, once you contemplate what God is supposed to respresent (as I read this morning in Parsh Yitro), it's a no-brainer; how do you represent pure and total awesomeness? Answer: don't even try. Just as God advised Moses when they communicated on Mount Sinai, don't look directly at God or you'll be destroyed. Look away, that is, outside the panel.So what's to make of my previous discussion, where I went though the steps of designing a costume for God? Well, whoever puts on that costume is obviously a charlatan and a fool! We need to direct our awareness to the very power of creation itself, not to some "puny human"(or humanoid form), as the Hulk might say.

God's Superhero Costume Design

2010-02-03T08:53:00.010-07:00

As I was reading our rabbi's weekly online torah commentary this morning, where he pondered the meaning of the word "commandment", I got to thinking what God might look like if he actually appeared in a comic book, uttering a commandment. I began to feel very uncomfortable with the stereotypical image of God as looking like a shaggy old man in white robes. Now, I know all about the prohibition about portraying creatures and God in a visual sense, but that hasn't prevented people from doing it anyway.

Visualizing is a powerful way of learning. If a subject seems vague or unclear, draw a diagram: a picture, and then suddenly, the sweet light of understanding graces your brain! Even though the diagram may be wrong, it still has explanatory value: it takes a stand, and makes a claim on reality.

So, why can't we play a game and imagine what God would look like if he had a superhero costume? God's been playing with us for thousands of years. It's a popular observation in our Torah study class at our local Temple: if God is all-knowing, why does he test us? Presumably He's complete knowlege of our lives, our actions, their causes, and their eventual results. (If that were really be the case, then His anger would be revealed as cruel. Does an all-knowing being feel shock or surprise? There's the paradox) But still, He tests us just to see how we'll choose (even though he presumably knows what the outcome will be in advance) So though God is Fierce, Awesome, and All-Powerful, He still has an impish quality: he like to test us, just to watch our reaction to our actions.

Well, what I'm suggesting is not too radical. From the murals on the walls to at the synagogue at Dura Europos, to the archetypal image of God as being a big guy with a white beard in flowing white robes, we've always had (I'll wager) SOME hidden image in our minds that stood for God. It may have been a burning bush, it may have been a sentient cloud, it may have been beautiful woman doing a fan dance,it may have been a sunset, or it may have been the image of the hard cover edition of the Plaut Torah Commentary -- but still, we use images as stand-ins for concepts.

Simplification helps you get a glimpse of the "Big Picture", and the Big Picture can give you the qualities of a visionary. So imagining a what God's costume would look like in a superhero comic book isn't too far-fetched. So right now, we're saddled with the image of God as an old guy with a long white beard in a flowing gown. Well, I say He's due for a costume change. I say that instead of representing God in human form, that we just make Him a floating undulating pulsating infinity symbol. That would capture the idea that God is boundless in an infinite number of ways, but maybe we could add the quality of God not being where you think He is, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: so make the infinity symbol flickers, to mess with you! This is to capture the idea that God cannot be bound by time or space either.

There. I've come up with a start for creating a superhero repesentation for the idea of God Himself: a flickering Infinity symbol. This could be emblazoned on the chest of a Man (we'll call the man "Mo"-- as in "Moses") and the flickering infinity symbol with hover in a space right square in the Man's chest. The man (Mo) and the "logo" (Infinity) are One; they act with telepathic knowledge of each other. Sometimes the logo disappears...and then it reappears again, depending whether God is connecting with someone at that particular moment, because we know that God is only present when Man/Woman looks for Him, and tries to see Him. Oh, and our character will also look something like the Silver Surfer, but there will probably be a blue face mask with some blue trim elsewere.

God really only exists if we acknowledge His existence. This gets back to the point I was making earlier about Reality. Our world is populated with things that we allow to exist. If we don't acknowlege their presence, or better, if we aren't AWARE of their presence, then they're invisible to us.

These are awesome concepts, hard to get one's "mind around", so I don't see anything wrong with creating a superhero design for God that helps remind us of the properties of God. The gruff shaggy old man in a throne just aint cuttin' it, because that image only gets across the ideas of old, angry, vindictive men. It doesn't represent anything about Eternity, or Infinity, or us being in a sort of partnership. Thus a costume redesign, with accompanying undulating flittering logo is a good move. I have spoken!

Abraham and Psychoanalysis Comics

2009-11-09T20:53:00.003-07:00

Over the years, many artists have tackled "inner space"; the world of the mind; craziness, insanity, psychiatry, head-trips, and psychoanalysis. Wouldn't you say that the story of the binding of Isaac is worthy of being told over several issues ot "Psychoanalysis"? The problem with the story of the Akeida is that Abram does't speak (other than "hineni; here I am) One can only image the inner torment that Abraham must feel. I can only wonder what the internal dialogue Abraham must have had with himself, as he struggled to obey God. Certain "film noir" film directors come to mind: Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles. If the Akeida was done correctly as a comic book, it was have loads of thought balloons, and would have Wally Wood as the artist. Lots of reflected light, dramatic closeups, and sillouettes. It would be filled with Abram's inner-dialogue with himself. And it would probably be in E.C.
s "new trend" comic boo, "Psychoanalysis". Without that inner-dialogue, Abram becomes an automoton: an unthinking robot. The word balloon as the place where a drash resides. What a concept.

The Torah with Sound Effects

2009-06-05T14:09:00.005-07:00

One way that comic artists spice of comic book stories is with sound effects. Even with already strong material, sound effects can add that little special something, that finishing touch. In my hand I'm holding one of my old comics from the 1970's, "The Hands of Shang-Chi, Master of Kung Fu" #58 (Marvel Comics, 35 cents). Just for fun, without revealing any of the plot, I'm going to list all of the sound effects from that issue, in order. Note: Most of these sound effects don't have exclamation points! Interesting.... okay, Here we go: BRAM! (pg 3), BRAM! AGH, ZHEOR (pg 6), SPAK (pg 7), BRAM (pg 10), WFFFF (pg 16), BAF (pg 17), BUKSH, HWAP (pg 22), WUD, SWAK, CHUNT (pg 27), BRAM (pg 30). Wow, can you imagine how the torah would be spiced up if it had sound effects added to it? To test this, lets try adding some sound effects from the list I just quoted, to the current torah portion, Naso (Numbers 4:21-7:89). Witness this enhanced version of Numbers 4:5; "At the breaking of camp ("BAF!"), Aaron and his sons shall go in ("WFFF!")and take down the screening curtain ("CHUNT!") and cover the Ark of the Pact with it ("WUD!")." Not bad! Did you notice how the addition of sound effects actually increases your kavanah? By voicing sound effects of the actions performed by the characters in the torah, we can get closer to God. It's as if we're borrowing some of the methods used by the old radio plays of yesteryear. Sound effects help make real a world in our mind. Daresay, I'll wager that even some of the more dry portions of the torah could benefit from the nutrifying goodness of sound effects. If it's okay to translate the siddur into comic book form as a way to understand the meaning and intentions of our prayers, then it's also okay to add sound effects to the torah, so that we can increase our kavanah.

Dr. Strange and pop psychology

2009-05-07T03:37:00.003-07:00

I just recently bought the collected issues of the old Doctor Strange comics, and I must say, I have a renewed appreciation for Stan Lee, their author. Lee (Leiber, actually), was not shy about using psychology and psychiatry as source material for this comic scripts. Doctor Strange is, on the surface, about "Black Magic" (whatever that is), but it's actually about the human psyche, where the fight for good over evil happens in the human mind. The nightmarish dreamscape cooked up by artist Steve Ditko is great, filled with a variety of icons of pop-art surrealism heavily influenced by Salvidor Dali (just think of Dali's painting "The Persistence of Memory") I'm trying to imagine how Doctor Strange would change is there were references to the Zohar (the sourcebook of the Kaballah & Jewish Mysticism) Floating Hebrew letters? Dark fire against Light fire? Jewish archetypes as comic characters in a nightmarish underworld? Gehenom (sp?) as the place where Doctor Strange fights his battles? Dr. Stange's battles all seem to be with his nightmares. I've got a renewed appreciation for Dr. Strange, which is actually a comic book form of pop psychology, but with a creepy underworld surrealism pop art gloss.

Why is it okay for Man to censor God?

2009-04-15T10:36:00.004-07:00

When putting together the Comic Book Siddur, I made sure that there was no "gratutious" violence, that is, instances of people hitting each other. The only violence I illustrated had to do with the weather, and those are Acts of God. Still, some of my critics feel that the very image thunderstorms, electrical energy, and cosmic fire is too violent, and thus "inapproprite", even though that imagery is very much a part of the Bible. You only have to read the upcoming parsha, Shemini, to see how graphic and gross the torah can get. This is where we see the preist Aaron preparing a sacrifice for God. He slaughters a calf, and when proceeds to dab the calf's blood at various places of the alter. It had to be pretty bloody, because Aaron then takes the calf's fat, kidneys and liver and burn them at the base of the altar as an offering. The pungent smoke that results is also part of the offering to God.

Now, without going any further into the details of this parsha, doesn't this strike you as a bit graphic? I can only imagine what one of my critics would say about this imagery, if it were to be illustrated in comic book form. Too gross? Too graphic? But this ritual is at the core of our religion. Even though later, it was substituted with prayer (prayer being a sacifice of ourselves to God), we still have this very graphic imagery as part of our literary tradition. I always get a kick out of watching a little old granny approaching the bima to read a portion such as this.

Recently, Aline Kominsky Crumb spoke at our local JCC, and she let out the word that her husband, R.Crumb, has finished working a comic book version of Genesis, warts and all. I can't wait to see it. Imagine what he'd do with Exodus, with it's graphic descriptions of sacrifices to God. This is not to revel in the gore, but rather, to ask the question "Who are we to censor God's language?"

Marvel Comics & the Passover Plagues, more entries!

2009-04-11T06:06:00.003-07:00

Rabbi Benjamin Sharff (editor of the Comic Book Siddur has come up with some suggestions for addition Marvel Comics characters to represent the Passover Plagues :

Plague of Death of the First Born: Dr. Doom

Plague of Hail: Storm

Plague of Frogs: Toad

Plague of Wild Beasts: Beast

Plague of Darkness: Mysterio

Marvel Comics & the Passover Plagues

2009-04-08T04:35:00.004-07:00

With Passover upon us, I got to musing how the plagues in the passover story would make great inspiration for some Marvel Comics Supervillains. So I did some checking online, and sure enough, almost every plague has it's corresponding supervillain. Sometimes it's a stretch, but there's enough correspondence for me to make my point! So, in the spirit of passover, here they are: the Marvel Comics supervillain equivalents of the Passover Plagues.

The Plague of the Pharoah (why not? Even though he's not regarded as a plague, he should be): Pharoah

Plague of Locusts: The Locust

Plague of Dead Livestock, Dead Fish, and Boils: The Plague (Bubonicus)

Plague of Dead Livestock, Dead Fish, and Boils (another version): Bacillus

Plague of Frogs: Leap Frog

Plague of Flaming Hail (well, actually just flame; I couldn't find flaming hail): Flame

Plague of Darkness: Dweller-In-Darkness

Theater of the Seder

2009-04-07T21:56:00.004-07:00

I've always had a visceral love for Passover, for its sheer theatricality. Everything on the seder plate is symbolic. If it tastes bitter, there's a reason. If it tastes salty, there's a reason for that too. Same for sweetness. I'm also a big fan comic books, and how the comic book art form is a wonderful way for telling a story. But truth be told, not even comic books holds a candle to the re-enactment of our story through tastes, smells, and activities.

As an artist, objects take on a symbolic significance. Oftentimes, the meaning of the symbols is very personal, only understood by you. But for passover, we all understand the meanings of the foods on the Seder plate: with as many senses as we can, we are reminded of the Passover experience, of our slavery in Egypt, of God's plagues against Pharoah, and our ultimate freedom.

I got to thinking about how far the symbolism went. Rabbi Jill Jacobs, in her article on the "My Jewish Learning" site, has a nicely organized breakdown of the meanings of the various foods. She even says something about their placement. Imagine, we don't just thank God for our food, but we also give each food a role in a choreographed table top theater. One thing that I like about Rabbi Jacob's article is that she concludes by inviting the reader to make the seder personal by bring an object that represents liberation to him or herself. Thus, her seder would involve a kind of show-and-tell experience.

Not that this would all be good. Once you get a table of us together, and inviting them to basically kvetch, it could go anywhere. Once you start talking about symbols of freedom, you're bound to start dwelling on stories of captivity as well. What if your seder guest's meaningful symbolic artifacts brought up bad memories? And then there all all of those cups of wine!

I wonder if this great tradition of having a seder, with its symbolic foods, doesn't point the way towards a more theatric and interactive type of literature? Suppose a trend caught on, where the authors of books would include food suggestions at various parts of their stories. I've heard of parties based on a theme from something in real life. But imagine that an author included a food shopping list with their books. That would take writing in a whole new direction: authors would have to write with flavors and aromas (maybe included as notes in the back of the book) Or imagine meeting with friends at a scene from a book, and ordering what one of the characters ordered from the menu.

Only someone who loved the seder would come up with nutty ideas like this.

Moral Vision and Moral Confusion

2009-04-05T03:58:00.006-07:00

One of the first prayers our siddur has us say in the morning is "Thank you God for giving us the ability to distinguish darkness from light". In the Comic Book Siddur, I illustrate this as a caped character running and pointing his way towards the sun, out from billowing dark clouds. With this imagery, it's clear that there is "Light" and "Dark", and that it's easy to tell the differene: Black billowing clouds with angry face = Dark; Bright shining smiling sun = Light. That's a simple graphic convention I used to provide a simple meaning to that blessing, to illustrate darkness and light, and how they are different. But if you examine the wording of that blessing, you'll see that the real meaning is much more profound.

It's not enough that God separated Darkness from Light in the early days of Creation. What we're thanking God for is our ability to tell the difference. But who can't tell the difference between darkness and light? Those who are blind. The prayer thanking God for opening the eyes of the blind immediatly follows the prayer thanking God for letting us distinguish darkness from light.

If were are take these prayers at face value, they are trivial, for it's obvious what the difference is between dark and light: one is defined by the other. Light = absence of Darkness, and vice versa. That same goes for the phrase "opening the eyes of the blind". If we were talking about those who are literally blind, then why would it even be in the siddur? Most of us can see; only a fraction of Humanity is without eyesight.

The only way to make sense of both of these prayers is on the metaphorical level. The concepts "dark", "light", and "blindness" have spiritual meaning only as it relates to our soul (that is, the seat of our emotions). I mean, the literal (or "simple") meaning of "light", "dark", and "sight" is nice enough; the world is filled with visual wonders, and our eyes allow us to appreciate them. But think about the moral meaning of these terms (light, dark, sight/vision): the siddur is advising us against moral confusion. We must pray to God that we maintain the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, or else we're lost, blind, stumbling around in the dark with no direction home. Before you know it, you may be convincing yourself that Bad is Good, and vice versa. We should pray to God that we have a moral foundation, and that we don't forget who we are.

So how do you illustrate that in a comic book? By having a guy in a cape running out of an angry dark billowing cloud into a smiley happy bright sunshiney face.

Why Get Pissed at the Prayer for Peeing?

2009-04-04T01:14:00.010-07:00

Some people just can't handle any reference to urination and defication, even if it's in the siddur. One of the the early morning prayers, "Asher Yatzar", has us thanking God for the various orafices and cavities in or bodies. The prayer goes on to get descriptive (quoting the ArtScroll Siddur): "If any one of them (our cavities or orafices) were to be ruptured or blocked, it would be impossible to stand here before You. Anyone who's ever had trouble urinating or making a bowel movement can appreciate this prayer.

In my book, the Comic Book Siddur", I illustrate this particular prayer with a guy sitting on a box, in an artistic reference to Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker". I pointed a word balloon to his mouth, with the text of the prayer reduced to: "Thanks God, for making me regular!"

Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) some people find that illustration offensive. "You've got a guy sitting on a toilet!", a woman explanined to me; "I just think that it's in poor taste!" What baffles me is that my illustration of the prayer, and my english translation of it ("thanks for making me regular!") is much more tame than the actual english translation as found in the Art Scroll siddur. The "Asher Yatzar" prayer explicitly talks about bodily cavites being obstructed making it impossible to relieve oneself. That imagery gets into your head just by reading the prayer right out of the Art Scroll siddur. But in the Comic Book Siddur, it's all sanitized and euphemized, while still getting across the same idea. I don't show someone who's bodily orafices have been obstructed, who'd having an impossible time urinating or defacating. That imagery sprung from the original authors of the siddur. But when I come up with some counter-imagery, namely, a superhero sitting on a soapbox, musing about life (ala Rodin's "Thinker") suddenly I'm the one being offensive. And to think that the big problem with a comic book version of the siddur in the first place had more to do with the fact that it had illustrations. Some people are comfortable describing disturbing graphic scenes with language, but illustrating them -- even in a sanitized and euphemistic way --suddenly makes them objectionable? Go figure...

Who is the Bible's Disembodied Narrator?

2009-04-01T05:28:00.006-07:00

There's a mysterious unnamed character in the Bible, who seems to be bigger than God; a sort of meta-God. I'm talking about the narrator of the Bible. In the torah portion, "Tzav" (Leviticus 6:1 - 8:36) the first line starts with "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying..."

Who's describing this situation? The narrator of the Bible is unnamed, but seems to have a more comprehensive of view of events than God Himself.

There are only two explanations: either the narrator is a "meta-God", a being outside of God and bigger than God (an impossibility, since God's domain is infinite, in all of time and space), or God likes to talk of Himself in the third person. And I thought that that was a literary innovation devised by Raymond Chandler and all other writer's of tough guy crime fiction where the protagonist was constantly narrating his own tale in the third person voice.

Viewing God as a Being who talks about Himself as being elsewhere, or as if He was someone else ("He", not "I"; "The Lord said to Moses" versus "I said to Moses"...) is at first glance very funny. I suddenly hear echoes of Humphrey Bogart saying "put down the tablet, Moe, or I'll shoot!", but after thinking about this for a moment, I begin to feel that it can't be any other way. For if God were to identify Himself as having a particular identity (that is "I"), then he immediatly becomes diminished. Imagine instead of the Bible reading "The Lord said to Moses..", but rather, "I said to Moses...", that completely changes the relationship to Man and God. God becomes a fellow traveler, rather than a Being lording over us.

This forms a nice segue into a key stylistic choice in my graphic novel version of the Jewish prayerbook, called the "Comic Book Siddur": the choice to keep the tone of the siddur very familar and jocular. By translating the tone of the siddur from it's royal language of "king and servant", into the language of "Superhero and sidekick", our relationship to God changes. There's a link between language and power. The more courtly language signifies an attitude of respect, however, it stifles the more tender emotions. On the other hand, a more familiar tone is an invitation to be "real" and honest (that is, the criteria for intimacy), if more effective to touching peoples hearts, which is what everyone wants when they try to "see God". Can you have an All Powerful God, and still talk to Him like He's your buddy? Should He, in turn, talk to Moses as if He was his buddy?

The answer, in my opinion, is...both.

You want power, and you want tenderness. You want a complete person. And you want God to be a complete God. To be too authoritarian is a problem. But to be too intimate can be a problem too. You want to get close, but you also need some distance. This was nicely illustrated in the scene where Moses receives the tablets from God. He's close to God (and thus his face glows), but he can't get too close, lest he perish.

So who's the disembodied narrator in the torah? It's God. He talks in the third person, because He's simultaneously talking to Himself, and to others, but He wants there to be some distance. Of course talking in the third person is also a symptom of a narcissistic personality disorder, but that seems to make sense too. Witness God's rage! Witnesss His need to feel loved by demanding that sacrifices be made to Him! This is not a socially sanctioned way for people to act. Should we put up with it from the Ruler of the Universe?

God's narcissistic "personality" (as witnessed by his talking in the third person) is easy to excuse on philosophical grounds: God wants to be close, but not too close. We can bring him close by talking with Him with jocular comic-book-styled language. But as the torah makes clear in the first line of Leviticus 6:1, God's penchant for talking in the third reveals His narcissistic tendencies.

But at least we now know who our disembodied narrator is.

Why's the Bible so gory? To please the kids?

2009-03-31T17:50:00.005-07:00

Why do kids, especially boys, like gross and disgusting things? As kids get into their teen years, they develop a fascination with gross and gory things. In my case, it was the gory images from "Tales from the Crypt".

Movie makers out of Hollywood long ago discovered box office gold in splatter flicks, such as "Scanners" or "Aliens", or even "Jaws", just to name a few. The Bible is filled with splattering, flaming, and exploding imagery. How interesting that right when kids develop their fascination with gore, it's time to get a bar mitzvah!

Perhaps the redactors to the Bible wanted to make sure that the gore was firmly rooted in a moral context (that is, part of God's plan, or a result of the Wrath of God), rather then being gratuitous and gross, and with the intention of scaring kids. Maybe the Biblical scribes of olde felt that it was important to scare kids with stories of God's wrath, all in the name of making sure that they lived a life that adhered to the commandments recorded by Moses. Because gore without God is a world that is lost. Even even gore WITH God is hard to stomach.

As I said earlier, perhaps our sages of yesteryear recognized that right as kids start getting interested in gory things, perhaps that's the best time for a child to assume the moral principles of adult. I wonder if that's a hidden reason why Jewish kids get their bar mitzvahs at thirteen years old!

What's the tone of God's voice? It matters!

2009-03-30T05:32:00.007-07:00

In the torah, God often speaks to Moses. What does His voice sound like? I've already pointed out, in the last post, that God's words really don't tell us His MEANING, for the tone of His voice carry more content than the words He actually uttered. Let us suppose that God is passive-aggressive, or says things to test us mortals (I mean, God IS always testing our mettle, is He not?).

When reading the words of God in His exchanges with Moses, God could mean a variety of things depending on the tone of his voice. From anger to sarcasm to impishness...you just don't know. Only Moses knows the tone of God's voice when God spoke to his. But since we don't know it, we can't tell from the text whether Moses acted in good faith (sorry about the pun on "faith"), bad faith, out of a desire to please, or out of spite. Remember, Moses' relationship with God was very chummy and familiar; Moses did, after all, feel nothing about destroying the most sacred objects at the time, the stone tablets upon which God had carved the ten commandments. It makes you think twice about Moses' actual respect for God: how could Moses destroy the law, which he had just received from God? And why was God willing to make a second set, thus giving Moses a second chance? Think about it: God creates the ten commandments, etched in stone...and Moses, in a fit of rage, breaks them apart. Why is he taking his anger (at the people worshipping the Golden Calf) out on the stone tablets? Perhaps because the tablets were intended, by God and Moses, as a gift. But Moses, realizing that the People weren't worthy of the gift, destroyed it. Apparantly Moses wasn't into recycled gifts. No exchanging them at Bookman's for trade credit (that's a local joke. Bookman's is a "recycled entertainment" store in Arizona. But Bob Bookman is Jewish, so I'm sure he'd appreciate the joke) What's incredible, though, is that Moses gets himself a replacement copy! He goes back up Mount Sinai and God zaps off another set. I can only imagine what God might have said to Moses, on his return trip back up Mount Sinai: "Dude, you break this set, and your ass it toast!"
Without info about the tone of God's voice, or the sound of God's voice, it's up to us to imagine what God really meant when He spoke. Sarcastic? Coy? Humorous? Humorless? Angry? Professional? It's really hard to tell.

God may have created the World out of words when He spoke...but we have to decide what was God's mood at the time of creation, and at other key moments in the torah. There's a case to be made that the tone of God's voice more accurately reveals His intentions than do the literal meaning of His words.

Representing the Tone of God's Voice

2009-03-29T08:10:00.006-07:00

God spoke to Moses. In my mind, I usually imagine a deep commanding voice...you know, the stereotype. But what clues to we really have about the TONE of God's voice? Not many... but if you think about it, it's vitally important for understanding the text of the torah. Is God calm? Angry? Sarcastic? Whispering? Gritting his teeth? Cool? You really don't know. It's up to the reader to imagine the "mood" of God when he's speaking.

Comic book artists don't have this problem; that's what word balloons are for. If God's angry, use an "electric" word balloon, filled with spikey points. If He's whispering, use a dotted line word balloon. These are the graphic symbols for representing speach. But think about how much fun you could have putting the text in different word balloon shapes. The shape of the word balloon completely changes the tone and mood of the voiced embodied therein. If we got into the habit of drawing speech balloons of our own design around the words of God (that is, the uttered "speech" of God), then we would be contributing in the listening of God, and ultimately the understanding of God. For the tone of someone's voice communicates just as much, if not more, than the words actually uttered. In fact, the tone and tenor of someones's voice, the "pre-verbal" noises that make communicate so much. But if all we're hearing are God's "words", God still needs our help in assigning a "voice" or a tone to those words. Comic book artists, based on their reading of God's tone, can design a thought balloon or a speech balloon which best represents that tone.

"Between thought and expression lies a lifetime" -- Lou Reed

...and a word balloon. Indeed.

Does God Speak in a Word Balloon?

2009-03-28T06:27:00.005-07:00

As a comic book artist, and as the author of a Jewish graphic novel, I'm fascinated by the visual conventions we in the comics biz use to represent speech, thought, and feelings. The word balloon is an awesome creation. It floats above the heads of those speak, so that we can "read their minds", as it were. A pointer to the speaker quickly identifies for us who is doing the speaking. I wonder, when God spoke to Moses (pick your favorite scene), WHERE would the word balloon be? Of course, we could just point the word balloon skyward, and I'm sure everyone would get the idea, but is God really in a cloud? Or is He everywhere? If God is everywhere, then the word balloon would point nowhere. Maybe it would just be a disembodied sound effect floating in the air. But when Moses talks to God, I'm sure that Moses would have a word balloon point to his mouth. Representing God as a word balloon is a tricky idea, because it immediatly makes some assumptions: that God has a mouth, that God has a voice, and that God's voice is coming from somewhere that can be pointed at (with a word balloon). Throughout the Bible, God has spoken to Man by the use of various agents of vessels, such as the burning bush, the firey cloud that followed the Israelistes during their wanderings in the desert, and the talking ass (the equestrian type) in the story of Balak and Balaam. How is a comic artist to represent talking to God, but to do it in a respectful way? The easy thing to do would to just point a word balloon skyward and forget about it. But that simple act creates the assumption that (as already noted) that God has a mouth, a voice, and a physical place in the world. But it also introduces the feelings that we get from comic books; a kind of sassiness. Can that attitude exist in the Hebrew school or the prayer service, and still contribute to an aura of holiness and respect. That's an issue with which I often struggle. You want to be readable, and accessible, but you don't want to be a joke. You've got to straddle the line between the sublime and the ridiculous. That ridge is where the heart of the Comic Book Siddur resides. If I did my job correctly, you'll feel the frission.

The Torah as Literary Seqential Art

2009-03-26T04:43:00.012-07:00

In their efforts to make the case that comics are like fine art, comic book artists with fine art pretentions have renamed what they do as "sequential art". When comics are recast as sequential art, then the whole panorama of art history suddenly looks like comics.

Any art that is broken down into bite sized pieces suddenly becomes fair game for being included in the sequential art pantheon. In fact, the whole "salon style" of hanging paintings on a wall in grid formation feeds into this idea nicely. If we view an art gallery or a museum as another version of a comic book page layout, then we can see that the most popular curator strategies are "salon style" (already mentioned), and "comic strip style", that is, hanging the pieces in a horizontal line.

To paraphrase Scott McCloud in in book "Understanding Comics", comics work the the areas between the pictures. Your mind make the sense by trying to see a series of disparate images unified in some way. Next time you look at a series of pictures on a wall, pretend that they are all hung in a certain order for a certain reason, and see if you can have fun trying to see a story in their order. You'll watch how your mind works when it tries to see the work as "comics"!

This idea got me thinking about the torah, and its presention into book form. The torah is a scroll. It's a big run-on document, that goes on and on and on...until the end of the scroll. But if you look at the torah in book form, you can see that it's been divided into various portions, or parshas. This was done by later editors. This act of editing a big long scroll into "chapters" is a milestone in sequential art: breaking the stories down into bite-sized pieces. The same goes for the book fomat as well: each turn of the page is an interruption, a break in the sequence; a "panel" for all intents and purposes.

From the conversion of a scroll, into a book with pages, Biblical editors are made the Bible into a work of sequential art, although it wasn't called that at the time. The Torah is in fact a form of literary sequential art, page by page, line by line... Just as Scott McCloud made the point that comics happens by what goes on BETWEEN the panels, the torah is akin to comics in that there's a lot that goes on between the lines.

Moses & the "Vault of Horror"

2009-03-24T22:57:00.017-07:00

In my last post, I looked at Frederic Wertham as a sympathetic character, who worried about the influence that comics had on children. In that story, comic literature (specifically the Horror comics of the 1950's, created by EC Comics) were the villain. But Horror comics didn't spring out a vacuum in 1950's America. They sprang from the soul of a country that had been conditioned by decades of "Red Baiting" and fear mongering, and fear of "aliens". Horror comics, as well as sci-fi movies about space aliens, and Hitchcock films about, say someone watching you through a "Rear Window", all provided a nessessary emotional release; it was cathartic.

Against this backdrop appears Frederic Wertham, with his book "Seduction of the Innocent", where he claims that comic books, especially horror comics, are a cause of juvenile delinquency. Had he been a little more intellectually curious, he might have asked, "why are horror comics so popular?" If he had focused his attention on the consumers of horror comics, instead of those who create them, he'd have to look at why kids have a fascination with gross and gory things. The discussion might then broaden to include parenting, the whole "nature vs. nurture" argument, and other topics.

While researching Wertham a little further, however, I found him to he a fascinating character. Although he comes across as a shrill critic, and a real threat to the freedom of the press, he's motivated by a desire to protect young people from the corrupting influences of mass consumer culture, mass culture being a contemporary equivalent of the "Golden Calf" in the Bible. I don't know if Wertham viewed himself as a kind of "Moses" character, sent from God to show the people the law, but his behavior (his "prophet"-like style, warning the people of dangers), but I see him as that type of person. From my research online about him, I've learned that he was trained as a psychiatrist, corresponded with Sigmund Freud (and later in life with comics fans through their fanzines), and was very liberal in his sympathies. I was surprised that worked for racial equality and against censorship. However, there is something very sad and tragic about Wertham, for his pseudoscientific book "Seduction of the Innocent" caused a lot of trouble, but was short on "proof". Wertham noticed that many juvenile delinquents read a lot of comic book literature. Therefore, he concluded, comics were the CAUSE of their juvenile delinquency. You can't make scientific claims without scientfic testing

Wertham's book really did cast a long period of darkness over the comics landscape; a Plague of Darkness. So, at once, Wertham is a sort of Moses character, as well as his own Pharaoh; contained within his own moral crusade are the seeds of the Plague of Darkness. I'm sure he meant well, and that his heart was in the right place, but look at all of the trouble he caused.

And he failed; comics today are darker and more sinister (and more well written!) than ever before. Although he helped destroy EC Comics (a real "CrimeSuspense" Story), fans of those comics went to college, went to art school, and now create very mature works, inspired by EC Comics. Libraries across America include comic books and graphic novels in their collections. Clearly, librarians value the literary qualities of comic book literature.

But I'm bothered how Wertham's crime fighting crusading spirit was the source of so much grief. Clearly he was motivated by a sense of moral indignation and fear. I don't look at him as a cynical person, rather as someone who made emotional decisions rather than scientific ones. Wertham was a psychiatrist, so I'm interested in his project to psychoanalyze superheroes (actually, as a psychiatrist, he should be prescribing medicine for the various superheroes. Psychoanalysis is more in the domain of psychology)

This musing about Frederic Wertham has me thinking about the Jewish idea of "tikkun olam", or "Repairing the World". Clearly, Wertham saw the world as filled with corrupting influences, and that the job of the censor is one of "repair". But can censorship be a valid instrument of repairing the world? Should all ideas be vented, so that the best ones float to the top? (Maybe the best ideas have the most hot air? ;) An ideal for Judaism is to "repair the world", but that suggests that there is an idea of what that "world to come" will be like. If everyone has a different idea of what a "World Repaired" looks like, then you've got the problem of competing agendas; you've got seeds of conflict, even before you can agree to disagree.

The irony of Wertham is that his moral crusade against horror comics created his own "Vault of Horror". When you read about Wertham's background, and his liberal sympathies, he comes across as "Moses", saving the people from paganism. But when you see the real effects of what did, he comes across as Pharaoh, bring a Plague of Darkness across the land of artistic freedom. I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. Although I am left with questions about heroes & villains, and the criteria we use to tell the difference. As it is in life, so it is in today's comic books.

Sympathy for Frederic Wertham

2009-03-23T08:44:00.008-07:00

I'm holding in my hand a recent comic book, published by a mainstream press, and available in any comic book shop. The content of story is so dark and gross, that it makes the beloved EC Comics of the 1950's look like comedy. For those of you who are familiar with the history of comic books, you're familiar with the book "Seduction of the Innocent" by Fredric Wertham, which made the case that comic books cause juvenile delinquency. Wertham, a psychiatrist, was roundly derided in comic book circles a "square" adult who just didn't "get" comics. So why do I feel that some of his claims are legit? People ARE influenced by the media that they consume. I'm thinking of, say, the cop who thinks he's or "Dirty Harry" or "Travis Bickle" (of "Taxi Driver"), or the investment tycoon who thinks he's "Gordon Gekko", or the bodybuilder who thinks he's "The Hulk"; it seems that we live in a world of media characters, and we model ourselves after those whom we admire-- or at least those who we see in comics and in the movies. In fact, we probably measure our own lives against those lives we see in the media.

Back to comics and human values, where this is all leading. I'm looking at a comic which I enjoy reading, but would wouldn't feel right if I recommended for kids. It's a dark story (both in content, and in the color palatte). The story logo contains the Nazi "SS" lettering. The imagery in the book includes an angry mouse having sex, a trashed out house with clothes and garbage everywhere, seedy looking characters who look like drug dealers, burned out slums, drug deals (depictions of the exchange of drugs for money), a fat kid with a gun being attacked by giant flying cockroaches, his dead body lying on a porch stoop, dank low-rent apartments, a Wall Street businessman in a sports car making a drug distribution deal with his grubby street partner, words like "fuck" and "bitch". The story ends with a swarm of giant cockroaches feasting on the body of the deceased drug dealer.
After having gotten this far in my description of this comic book, I see that I'm having a change of heart. Despite the fact that the setting and characters of this story are "pagan" and vile, the story does have a moral heart: the bad guys lose (not all of them, but this particular character). The heroes in the story, the moral agents, are actually the cockroaches. They're the ones who live amongst the evil and root it out. It looks disgusting, but I'm sure that it's just as foul as watching Aaron's sons get torched for entering the Temple with "unholy fire". The Bible is just as violent and "pagan" (in its punishments) as is my comic book.

I feel for Frederic Wertham. I'm sure that he worried about his kids, and how the artistic advances in culture (he might call them "degenerate") would affect kids. There are many examples of cases where kids do some heinous act because they read about it or saw it on TV. I'm sure that he felt that he as acting as Superman would, to put it ironically: fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. But if you just focus on the gory details, such as the gruesome EC Horror Comics, or the gross cockroach story that I used to start this article, you'd conclude that comics are "pagan" or immoral. However, that's misguided. You've got to look at who the heroes are, and what the implied values in the story are. The cockroaches, as heroes, "save the day" to some extent, yet their work is not done, and may never be done. The thing that we've got to get used to as readers is to realize that "heroes", like God, could be found in the most unlikely of places. A gut test is this: do you feel brought down and depressed by the story? Or oddly uplifted? Today's edgy comics require more of the reader then those of the Golden Age of yesteryear.

The "Hand" of God

2009-03-22T10:16:00.009-07:00

In Judaism, its forbidden to represent God as an image. Curiously, however, we do see stand-ins for God throughout the torah, such as a burning bush, or as a cloud with fire in it. One of the more enjoyable images for me is the Hand of God...literally. There is a synagogue for the 3rd century (which is now in modern-day Syria) called the "Synagogue at Dura Europos". It is filled with mural after mural depicting scenes from the Bible, very similar to what we're used to seeing from Giotto in his depiction of the life of Jesus...but created by Jews thousands of years before Christ. In several murals you can see an actual hand reaching out of a cloud down to people below; that is the Hand of God. So interesting, especially at that early history of the Jews, that God is represented by a Hand. Check out this example of
God freeing the people of Israel from Egypt: It looks like Man really IS created in the image of God. It's just that God is literally out of the picture, with the exception of his arms, which gesture from the top of the "picture plane". God's outstretched arms are a necessary storytelling device in this panoramic scene, for with God's arms, you'd just see a bunch of people escaping Egypt. The artist, who I'm sure had a familiarity of the prohibition of representing an image of God, made a representation of God's arms anyway. Perhaps that's an important point: it's really God's FACE that into which we're not supposed to look.

Remember the scene when Moses goes to the top of Mount Sinai to get the ten commandments from God, but he had to turn his face away from God? You can't look God in the face, lest you die. But what about looking at God's arms? Arms are a little less descriptive. We recognize people by their faces. Could you recognize even those people most close to you simply by looking their arms? It'd bet not. Arms are practically generic, so it's safe to safe arms are practically the same; they're not useful for indentifying people (or God), so it's safe to put God's "arms" in a picture. The important thing with is discussion, however, is to make the point that we need to see a picture of God's arms to understand that, as it says in the torah (and I'm paraphrasing) "You shall leave Egypt like an outstretched arm"... It's the words that you find inside of the mezuzzah. If you look carefully, you can see that God is also wearing tefillin (of course, it could also be cracks in the wall)

I really wish that there were other examples of God's Hand in Jewish art, because the hand is so expressive. One of my favorite artists is George de la Tour, mainly for his intricate use of expressive hand poses. My favorite painting by him is the "Cheat with the Ace of Clubs". It as all sorts of interesting hand poses which tell a great story. Wouldn't it be great if God, who is such an expressive character in the Bible, got a few more expressive shots of his hands? Imagine a visual story told exclusively with hand gestures. Could it be done? I wonder if God had no voice, but just the use of his "hands"; how would he command the Israelites? I've always enjoyed silent graphic novels. Could we treat the relationship between God and Moses as a silent graphic novel? The wheels in my head are spinning...

Abstract Art & the curious case of the Amoeba

2009-03-21T14:05:00.001-07:00

For Jewish artists to be stylistically kosher, can they paint realistic / representational pictures? The motivation behind this query is the commandment which says that you may not make images of any creature, including those under water, those that creep on the ground, and that those that fly in the air. Presumably, had the ancients known about microscopic life (or more precisely, if God had been a little more specific) there would have been an additional provision for there not to be any depictions of microscopic life either. Therefore, so the socioligical explanation goes, that is why Jews are drawn towards making "abstract" art: because it doesn't look like anything that swims, creeps on the ground, or flies in the air.

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you: does the amoeba not swim? Or how about the paramecium? Yes, of course they do! And how would you describe their appearance? (Remember, in this case, it's not fair to describe an amoeba as "amoeba-like": that gets you nowhere) Admit it: an amoeba is shape like a blob. That it, it's shape is..."abstract". If you saw a painting of a bunch of blobs, would you regard that as abstract art? Or a realistic respresentation of a family of amoebas? (new concept: amoebas have families!)

The torah (through Moses) forbids the creation of idols, lest we start to idolize them, and idol worship is the thing that Judaism is squarely against. Sometimes, if you're feeling cranky, you can see some blurring around the edges of this value. For argument's sake, let me set up an oversimplification: Judaism is structured around the life of the mind, where everything is abstact, and the only reality exists in the world of concepts. Although we Jews are oriented to make the World a Better Place (i.e. the "real" world of people, places, and things) we want to stay off of the slippery slope to idol worship, so we avoid making sculptures of any person, lest we start treating it like a God. I think that the proviso for Jewish sculptors is that if they do create an image of a person, then it must not look heroic (I'm thinking of the sculptures of Einstein at National Academy of Science Washington, DC, and the sculpture of him sitting in a garden in Israel, which has him lounging on some steps, and sittion on a park bench) And if making realistic sculpture still proves to moral problem, then the Jewish artist can always retreat into abstraction. But if his work looks amoeba-like, then he's being an idol maker after all!
God created, and loves, ALL creatures, even paramecium and amoebas. And can you see someone worshipping a stone blob? How about a massive stone blob? (Say, a massive molten meteorite from outer space?) Although this is veering into the ridiculous, it's all to make the point ALL art is representational, its just that sometimes you've got to change your perspective to see it.
So does this mean that the Ancient Israelites were screwed from the outset, basically commanded to not make any images at all? No. As I see it, the only want to work your way out of this puzzle is midrashic: that God's world can only be perfect if it includes contradictions and inconsistencies! For in every commandment, there are the seeds of inconsistency (I think)