Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Rothko Chapel as a Spirtual Comic Book

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.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

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

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.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

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

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.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Doorposts as a Place of Decision

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?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Yitro: the Super-Inlaw

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!)

Saturday, February 6, 2010

God's costume? You fool!

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.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

God's Superhero Costume Design

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!