Jewish Aesthetics (or lack thereof)
Steven Goldfarb
OK, here goes as promised.
In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
Why is that? Individual Jews are extremely artistic. However, this art,
including visual arts and music, is almost without exception expressed
in a secular manner. Jews are great patrons of the arts as well, but even
here this is rarely if ever expressed through religious outlets. In fact,
"artistic" can almost be considered the opposite of "religious" -- that
is, the more artistic the less religious, and vice-versa.
Of course there are a few exceptions - but they're rare, and recent. (or
ancient, but nothing in the middle)
Why is this? I think the Torah is clear that aesthetics were important at
one time. Look at the design of the Temple -- it doesn't say "put together
a shack, maybe find a nice cheap coat of paint, and perhaps some folding
chairs." The Torah goes to great lengths to describe how beautiful the
building is supposed to be, right? As well as the Mishkan, and I think
there are other examples. Fine clothing is discussed, decorations, and
music. God is very clear that he likes good music.
Yes, graven images are prohibited. But look at Islamic art -- it's
absolutely wonderful. They worked within a constraint to produce some of
the finest examples of design and architecture ever made on this earth.
The power of Christian art goes without saying. I'd even go so far as to
say that it's Christianity's only redeeming quality -- absolutely
wonderful art, music, and architecture.
So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly? They've
got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
on them.
Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
changed?
--sg
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
Binyamin Dissen
:>In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
:>traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
:>would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
Using your definition of "aesthetics".
:>Why is that? Individual Jews are extremely artistic. However, this art,
:>including visual arts and music, is almost without exception expressed
:>in a secular manner.
Never heard Chassidic niggunim, I presume?
:> Jews are great patrons of the arts as well,
As Jews, or as a means of fitting in with the non-Jewish community?
:> but even
:>here this is rarely if ever expressed through religious outlets. In fact,
:>"artistic" can almost be considered the opposite of "religious" -- that
:>is, the more artistic the less religious, and vice-versa.
Subject to some definitions of "religious" and "artistic".
:>Of course there are a few exceptions - but they're rare, and recent. (or
:>ancient, but nothing in the middle)
Proof?
:>Why is this? I think the Torah is clear that aesthetics were important at
:>one time. Look at the design of the Temple -- it doesn't say "put together
:>a shack, maybe find a nice cheap coat of paint, and perhaps some folding
:>chairs." The Torah goes to great lengths to describe how beautiful the
:>building is supposed to be, right?
The Torah gives EXACT details on how to build things.
:> As well as the Mishkan, and I think
:>there are other examples. Fine clothing is discussed, decorations, and
:>music. God is very clear that he likes good music.
Sadly, with the destruction of the Bet HaMikdush, we do not have the ability
to enjoy the singing.
:>Yes, graven images are prohibited. But look at Islamic art -- it's
:>absolutely wonderful. They worked within a constraint to produce some of
:>the finest examples of design and architecture ever made on this earth.
What does that have to do with Judaism?
:>The power of Christian art goes without saying. I'd even go so far as to
:>say that it's Christianity's only redeeming quality -- absolutely
:>wonderful art, music, and architecture.
Huh??
:>So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
:>beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly? They've
:>got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
:>on them.
Perhaps because to Judaism the beauty is completely different?
The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The beauty
important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
:>Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
:>aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
:>my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
:>aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
Subject to YOUR definition of "aesthetics".
:>Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
:>ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
One wonders why you are so concerned about the externals of a temporary world.
:>Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
:>changed?
Might I suggest that you study, to appreciate the beauty of the Torah?
Gold plated Teffilin are invalid.
A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
External beauty is not the end all for Judaism.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
>traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
>would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
>So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
>beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly? They've
>got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
>on them.
>Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
>aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
>my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
>aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
I'd say a lot of it is economic. Until the modern period, Jews
never were secure enough in any location to have the leisure and
the money to endow artists. Second, there is the near-universal
understanding of the graven-image prohibition to prohibit various
kinds of portraiture, and modesty prohibitions that make it difficult
to train by drawin the human form, which is necessary to the proper
development of an artist. So our artists are all outcasts, secularists,
etc., who are not supported by a religious moneyed class. Or, they're
cartoonists, like Michoel Muchnik in his early years (who's a nice
guy, I just ran into him in the local pizza shop).
The flowering of Christian art until the modern period was supported
by the Church, by a religious moneyed class, who wanted religious
scenes as well as secular scenes.
>Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
>ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
Only because you find Orthodoxy ugly. See some of the synagogues
in Italy, or in New York - great massive things put up in the 19th
century or earlier. There may not be a lot of davka Jewish styles,
although I wonder to what extent Barnett Newman was trying to go
there with his kabbalah-inspired paintings and sculptures in the
1960s.
>Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
>changed?
I think you're missing a lot. There is plenty of the aesthetic in
Judaism, but in forms that are more amenable to being harnessed to
religion, such as in music or in architecture. Art is not just pictures
and statues.
How much Muslim figurative art is there? They have even more
restrictive rules on the figurative in art than we do. Yet they
put up some lovely buildings, wall-decorations, rugs, etc. E.g.,
the Mosque of Omar (which is itself a strange building, asymmetric,
etc.), the Muhammad Ali Mosque, the Hagia Sophia (which was originally
Byzantine, I think)...
--
Jonathan Baker | D"T: 10ths are serious, 15ths are happy: 10 Tvt, 9
jjb...@panix.com | Av, Y"K; but all Y"T's are 15ths; 15 Shvt; 15 Av.
Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Susan Cohen
Steven Goldfarb wrote:
> Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
> beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly?
You have obviously forgotten that this matter is an extremely subjective
one.
Mosques are uniformly Arabian in nature. You obviously like Arabian
architecture.
Synagogues, OTOH, vary from place to place. You obviously don't like the
architecture where you are. I've seen beautiful synagogues fom Art Deco (DC)
to "Islamic" (Baltimore) and some very nice modern designs (also Baltimore)
> They've
> got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
> on them.
We've also got buildings with fabulous lines, *Jewish* stained glass
windows...
> Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
> aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
> my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
> aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
Or, rather, when you see a scruffy little building packed with O Jews,
you see the only building they could afford, and they're more interested
in what goes on inside the building. Sometimes aesthetics *is* a matter
of money.
The only O buildings in my mother's neighborhood that was built *by*
them rather than being "what they were able to afford" are lovely modern
buildings with clean lines and good balance. And the Mikveh is probably
the most beautiful building in the Mt. Washington/Pikesville/Baltimore
area that I've ever seen, religious or no.
Susan
Eliyahu
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> :>In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
> :>traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
> :>would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
>
at
> :>one time. Look at the design of the Temple -- it doesn't say "put
together
> :>a shack, maybe find a nice cheap coat of paint, and perhaps some folding
> :>chairs." The Torah goes to great lengths to describe how beautiful the
> :>building is supposed to be, right?
>
> The Torah gives EXACT details on how to build things.
>
have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't care
about beauty.
> :>Yes, graven images are prohibited. But look at Islamic art -- it's
> :>absolutely wonderful. They worked within a constraint to produce some of
> :>the finest examples of design and architecture ever made on this earth.
>
> What does that have to do with Judaism?
>
It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
> :>The power of Christian art goes without saying. I'd even go so far as to
> :>say that it's Christianity's only redeeming quality -- absolutely
> :>wonderful art, music, and architecture.
>
> Huh??
>
Well, there's certainly nothing redeeming about their theology (although
that does open the door for a few good puns), but their music is often great
despite the subject matter. For that matter, there are some songs that are
compatible with Jewish beliefs as well. i.e., Brahm's "How Lovely Is Thy
Dwelling Place," which is IMHO one of the most beautiful choral works ever
written. So why can't we do as much in music.
> :>So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
> :>beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly?
They've
> :>got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
> :>on them.
>
> Perhaps because to Judaism the beauty is completely different?
>
Art on velvet has gotten a pretty bad reputation ever since Elvis fans go a
hold of it...
> The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
>
> To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The
beauty
> important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
>
Why, then, did G-d give such detailed specifications for a beautiful Temple
if physical appearances are of no consequence? And there is the tradition of
doing extra things to beautify a mitzvah, whether it be in a fancy mezuzah
holder, a set of silver finials for a sefer torah, or adornments atop the
individual letters in that torah?
> Gold plated Teffilin are invalid.
>
But a gold plated mezuzah holder is permitted.
> A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
>
As is one written with Carter's India ink. But a gold kaddish cup would be
allowed, as would gold adornments for the ark.
> External beauty is not the end all for Judaism.
>
Neither is external mediocrity. Would we compare a good wife to rubies if
rubies weren't a thing of beauty to be desired and admired? The Tanakh could
have just as easily compared her to a hunk of granite, which, although not
much to look at, is solid and durable, and valued for building.
As a programmer, what is the reason for writing programs with more than
plain text on a plain screen if not for the beauty and attractiveness? It
worked fine back in the days of DOS. Other than the need to add
illustrations for technical information, the answer is that we all like for
our environments to be attractive to the eye. Anyone who's visited any of
the "worst of the web" listings has seen what an unattractive display can do
to a site with otherwise good information. Most of us have customized the
settings on our own computers to satisfy our own needs for beauty, otherwise
we'd all be looking at the same defaults that Mr. Gates provided for OEM
installation.
You're right that it isn't the end-all for Judaism, but there's no reason it
can't be a part of our lives rather than an exception.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Jordi Sod
> How much Muslim figurative art is there? They have even more
Quite a bit, actually. Persian and Mughal miniatures are
some of the finest art ever done in Muslim lands. They have
nothing to envy similar European works.
> restrictive rules on the figurative in art than we do. Yet they
> put up some lovely buildings, wall-decorations, rugs, etc. E.g.,
> the Mosque of Omar (which is itself a strange building, asymmetric,
> etc.), the Muhammad Ali Mosque, the Hagia Sophia (which was originally
> Byzantine, I think)...
Hagia Sophia is indeed a Byzantine building.
Jordi
----
Jordi Sod
[...]
> Yes, graven images are prohibited. But look at Islamic art -- it's
> absolutely wonderful. They worked within a constraint to produce some of
> the finest examples of design and architecture ever made on this earth.
...and when given the chance, we built some pretty impressive
synagogues in Muslim lands, closely following the Muslim models.
Take Toledo, for instance.
>
> The power of Christian art goes without saying. I'd even go so far as to
> say that it's Christianity's only redeeming quality -- absolutely
> wonderful art, music, and architecture.
Here we have a problem. The pinnacle of Christian architecture
-- the gothic cathedral --- is an unsuitable model for a synagogue.
It is very much image-oriented. The same can be said for Baroque
religious architecture, from any location . But even in Christian
lands we have build some nice synagogues -- a couple of Venetian
ones come to mind.
Alas, in much of Europe, we tried to make up this antagonism to
the dominant style of religious archictecture by building
pseudo-islamic buildings, such as the main synagogue in Florence,
and AFAIR Worms.
There was a place where we had rather nice synagogues: some of
the wooden synagogues in Poland were strikingly beautiful. And
yet, they were not built on a religious model: they seem inspired
either by barns or by secular urban architecture. Sadly, almost
all of them were destroyed during the war, and few people are
aware of the architectural heritage we have lost.
Let us keep in mind, too, that E. Europe was poor, and Jews
even poorer! Indeed, we had no major resources to build too
many fine buildings.
>
> So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
> beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly? They've
> got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
> on them.
Historical circumstances -- most Jews living in non-Muslim lands,
and exacerbated tensions btw. Jews and Muslims -- preclude people
from building synagogues inspired in Islamic models.
Nevertheless, don't think that contemporary Islamic architecture
is doing so well: most of it is embarassingly inferior to its
predecessors. The same might be said for most contemporary
architecture, but the situation is exarcerbated by the dire
political and cultural straits of most Muslim countries.
>
> Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
> aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
> my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
> aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
Steven, the US has lots of money. And yet, with a handful
of exceptions, its current architecture is rather boring. Fine
architecture, fine cities, require not only money but often
concerted action as well. As long as most (Jewish)
Americans prefer to live in a homogeneized landscape, part.
suburbia, don't expect too much interesting architecture.
>
> Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
> ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
I can't say. The Mexican community has rather peculiar characteristics
that provide different reasons for the tackiness of some of its
synagogues (or the lack thereof of others). I don't see any
O - non-O correlation, though. Culture seems to be the key.
>
> Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
> changed?
Why? I suggest:
a) Jews couldn't copy most Xian religious architecture. This
reduces the repertory of architectural styles.
b) Most Jews lived in poor areas, both economically and
architecturally. Aditionally, they had to cope with serious
building restrictions.
c) Most of the fine synagogues that did get built in C and
E. Europe have been destroyed. Things didn't use to be that
bad.
d) Most pseudo-Moorish experiments didn't stand the test of
time.
e) Most contemporary architecture is uninspiring anyway.
Has it always been this way?
No. Toledo, many wooden synagogues in Poland and Germany,
the synagogues in Venice, a number of fine buildings in NY
(Temple Emanu-El ?), show otherwise.
Can it, and should it, be changed?
Why, yes. Not shying away from other traditions --
including the formerly huge influence of Islamic art --
could be a step in the right direction. But still
we are stuck in what I see as a chaotic and relatively
lousy period in architecture.
>
> --sg
Jordi
----
Please e-mail me at jordi_sod, but at hotmail.com,
not my-deja.com
Steven Goldfarb
>I'd say a lot of it is economic. Until the modern period, Jews
>never were secure enough in any location to have the leisure and
>the money to endow artists. Second, there is the near-universal
>understanding of the graven-image prohibition to prohibit various
>kinds of portraiture, and modesty prohibitions that make it difficult
>to train by drawin the human form, which is necessary to the proper
>development of an artist. So our artists are all outcasts, secularists,
>etc., who are not supported by a religious moneyed class. Or, they're
>cartoonists, like Michoel Muchnik in his early years (who's a nice
>guy, I just ran into him in the local pizza shop).
Yeah, I think that's a good point. AFAIK there isn't a heck of a lot of
aesthetics among the corresponding non-Jewish peasants of Poland, Russia,
etc., perhaps for similar reasons. That explains some of it, but we've
always had a lot of "city folk," and city folk tend to have more access to
art, I think. So it doesn't explain it entirely.
>The flowering of Christian art until the modern period was supported
>by the Church, by a religious moneyed class, who wanted religious
>scenes as well as secular scenes.
True. But we've always had a religious moneyed class, too.
>>Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
>>ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
>Only because you find Orthodoxy ugly. See some of the synagogues
>in Italy, or in New York - great massive things put up in the 19th
>century or earlier. There may not be a lot of davka Jewish styles,
>although I wonder to what extent Barnett Newman was trying to go
>there with his kabbalah-inspired paintings and sculptures in the
>1960s.
That's a harsh thing to say -- I certainly don't find Orthodoxy ugly as
such. Actually, I tend to prefer the O model of a shul, rather than some
church-like R temple. I'm not talking about "grandeur," necessarily, which
was the key point of much Christian art. But there's plenty of room in the
little things for aesthetics, too -- you don't need a giant altarpiece or
huge paintings of saints to achieve beauty.
>>Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
>>changed?
>I think you're missing a lot. There is plenty of the aesthetic in
>Judaism, but in forms that are more amenable to being harnessed to
>religion, such as in music or in architecture. Art is not just pictures
>and statues.
Religious music? Among the Chassidim, yes. But overall? I'm not so sure.
And art certainly is more than pictures and statues, I agree.
>How much Muslim figurative art is there? They have even more
>restrictive rules on the figurative in art than we do. Yet they
>put up some lovely buildings, wall-decorations, rugs, etc. E.g.,
>the Mosque of Omar (which is itself a strange building, asymmetric,
>etc.), the Muhammad Ali Mosque, the Hagia Sophia (which was originally
>Byzantine, I think)...
Exactly and precisely my point. I even used the Muslims as an example --
they're art is lovely, and often delicate, soothing, decidedly different
from the Catholic "look how huge and impressive our church is, our god
must be huge and impressive too, huh?" school.
I have the impression that some Sephardim are in touch with this type of
aesthetic.
--sg
>--
> Jonathan Baker | D"T: 10ths are serious, 15ths are happy: 10 Tvt, 9
> jjb...@panix.com | Av, Y"K; but all Y"T's are 15ths; 15 Shvt; 15 Av.
> Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Steven Goldfarb
>The only O buildings in my mother's neighborhood that was built *by*
>them rather than being "what they were able to afford" are lovely modern
>buildings with clean lines and good balance. And the Mikveh is probably
>the most beautiful building in the Mt. Washington/Pikesville/Baltimore
>area that I've ever seen, religious or no.
I'm glad to hear that. Do people appreciate it? Hope so.
But much of this is recent, and often derivative from the secular world.
I guess what I'm getting at is that we have so many ancient traditions,
our lack of an established artistic tradition is notable by its absence.
--sg
>Susan
Steven Goldfarb
>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d could
>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't care
>about beauty.
Exactly so.
>It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Precisely.
>Well, there's certainly nothing redeeming about their theology (although
>that does open the door for a few good puns), but their music is often great
>despite the subject matter. For that matter, there are some songs that are
>compatible with Jewish beliefs as well. i.e., Brahm's "How Lovely Is Thy
>Dwelling Place," which is IMHO one of the most beautiful choral works ever
>written. So why can't we do as much in music.
Just what I was trying to say, thanks.
>Why, then, did G-d give such detailed specifications for a beautiful Temple
>if physical appearances are of no consequence? And there is the tradition of
>doing extra things to beautify a mitzvah, whether it be in a fancy mezuzah
>holder, a set of silver finials for a sefer torah, or adornments atop the
>individual letters in that torah?
Yep.
>Neither is external mediocrity. Would we compare a good wife to rubies if
>rubies weren't a thing of beauty to be desired and admired? The Tanakh could
>have just as easily compared her to a hunk of granite, which, although not
>much to look at, is solid and durable, and valued for building.
>As a programmer, what is the reason for writing programs with more than
>plain text on a plain screen if not for the beauty and attractiveness? It
>worked fine back in the days of DOS. Other than the need to add
>illustrations for technical information, the answer is that we all like for
>our environments to be attractive to the eye. Anyone who's visited any of
>the "worst of the web" listings has seen what an unattractive display can do
>to a site with otherwise good information. Most of us have customized the
>settings on our own computers to satisfy our own needs for beauty, otherwise
>we'd all be looking at the same defaults that Mr. Gates provided for OEM
>installation.
>You're right that it isn't the end-all for Judaism, but there's no reason it
>can't be a part of our lives rather than an exception.
Very well said, and well worth repeating.
--sg
>--
>Eliyahu Rooff
>www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
>RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Steven Goldfarb
>...and when given the chance, we built some pretty impressive
>synagogues in Muslim lands, closely following the Muslim models.
>Take Toledo, for instance.
I hope to visit Spain some day and check them out - I'd like to see them,
I've heard good things.
>Here we have a problem. The pinnacle of Christian architecture
>-- the gothic cathedral --- is an unsuitable model for a synagogue.
>It is very much image-oriented. The same can be said for Baroque
>religious architecture, from any location . But even in Christian
>lands we have build some nice synagogues -- a couple of Venetian
>ones come to mind.
I agree - the point I'm trying to make here, probably poorly, is how come
we don't have a native, traditional Jewish aesthetic? Sure, we've built
Islamic-style buildings, or maybe adapted some Christian models. But
where's ours? Where's the native aesthetic?
>There was a place where we had rather nice synagogues: some of
>the wooden synagogues in Poland were strikingly beautiful. And
>yet, they were not built on a religious model: they seem inspired
>either by barns or by secular urban architecture. Sadly, almost
>all of them were destroyed during the war, and few people are
>aware of the architectural heritage we have lost.
That is sad - I'd love to see those.
>and exacerbated tensions btw. Jews and Muslims -- preclude people
>from building synagogues inspired in Islamic models.
>Nevertheless, don't think that contemporary Islamic architecture
>is doing so well: most of it is embarassingly inferior to its
>predecessors. The same might be said for most contemporary
>architecture, but the situation is exarcerbated by the dire
>political and cultural straits of most Muslim countries.
But at least contemporary Muslim artists (as well as Christian artists of
course) have something to work with -- an aesthetic heritage that they can
interpret, modify, whatever. I'm annoyed that I don't have one too.
>Steven, the US has lots of money. And yet, with a handful
>of exceptions, its current architecture is rather boring. Fine
>architecture, fine cities, require not only money but often
>concerted action as well. As long as most (Jewish)
>Americans prefer to live in a homogeneized landscape, part.
>suburbia, don't expect too much interesting architecture.
I very much agree - I'm not a huge architecture fan, anyway. But I do like
Gehry's work, and he's a Jew. Coincidence? Dunno.
>I can't say. The Mexican community has rather peculiar characteristics
>that provide different reasons for the tackiness of some of its
>synagogues (or the lack thereof of others). I don't see any
>O - non-O correlation, though. Culture seems to be the key.
Oh, yes -- I agree that by our standards Mexican art is tacky, but it's
wonderful. There's definitely a Mexican aesthetic tradition - why not a
Jewish one?
>Why? I suggest:
>a) Jews couldn't copy most Xian religious architecture. This
>reduces the repertory of architectural styles.
>b) Most Jews lived in poor areas, both economically and
>architecturally. Aditionally, they had to cope with serious
>building restrictions.
>c) Most of the fine synagogues that did get built in C and
>E. Europe have been destroyed. Things didn't use to be that
>bad.
>d) Most pseudo-Moorish experiments didn't stand the test of
>time.
>e) Most contemporary architecture is uninspiring anyway.
This is likely true for architecture, but what about other artistic
endeavors? We passed down so much stuff - how come no artistic heritage?
Binyamin Dissen
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
:>> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
:>> :>In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
:>> :>traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
:>> :>would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
:>> :>Why is this? I think the Torah is clear that aesthetics were important
:>at
:>> :>one time. Look at the design of the Temple -- it doesn't say "put
:>together
:>> :>a shack, maybe find a nice cheap coat of paint, and perhaps some folding
:>> :>chairs." The Torah goes to great lengths to describe how beautiful the
:>> :>building is supposed to be, right?
:>> The Torah gives EXACT details on how to build things.
:>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d could
:>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't care
:>about beauty.
Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
We don't know why He chose the way He did.
:>> :>Yes, graven images are prohibited. But look at Islamic art -- it's
:>> :>absolutely wonderful. They worked within a constraint to produce some of
:>> :>the finest examples of design and architecture ever made on this earth.
:>> What does that have to do with Judaism?
:>It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Who says it is?
All one can say is that you are not satisfied.
:>> :>The power of Christian art goes without saying. I'd even go so far as to
:>> :>say that it's Christianity's only redeeming quality -- absolutely
:>> :>wonderful art, music, and architecture.
:>> Huh??
:>Well, there's certainly nothing redeeming about their theology (although
:>that does open the door for a few good puns), but their music is often great
:>despite the subject matter. For that matter, there are some songs that are
:>compatible with Jewish beliefs as well. i.e., Brahm's "How Lovely Is Thy
:>Dwelling Place," which is IMHO one of the most beautiful choral works ever
:>written. So why can't we do as much in music.
"Sadly, with the destruction of the Bet HaMikdush, we do not have the ability
to enjoy the singing".
There was a choir which sang during the sacrifices.
:>> :>So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
:>> :>beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly?
:>They've
:>> :>got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
:>> :>on them.
:>> Perhaps because to Judaism the beauty is completely different?
:>Art on velvet has gotten a pretty bad reputation ever since Elvis fans go a
:>hold of it...
All we can see from this is that you, from some external point of view, find
it tacky.
Is beauty so era dependent?
Is there no objective beauty?
:>> The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
:>> To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The
:>beauty
:>> important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
:>Why, then, did G-d give such detailed specifications for a beautiful Temple
:>if physical appearances are of no consequence?
Perhaps it is a coincidence? Do we know why G-d does things?
You are the one insisting that there is a conflict. I am merely stating the
beauty in Judaism is not from structures, it is in people, their thoughts and
actions.
I do not understand why you cannot see that.
:> And there is the tradition of
:>doing extra things to beautify a mitzvah, whether it be in a fancy mezuzah
:>holder, a set of silver finials for a sefer torah,
So you don't see a conflict after all?
:> or adornments atop the
:>individual letters in that torah?
Ther rules of Safrut.
:>> Gold plated Teffilin are invalid.
:>But a gold plated mezuzah holder is permitted.
One is an object of a Mitzvah, one is a piece of furniture which can be made
from anything.
There are those that think a bare Mezzuzah is much more beautiful.
:>> A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
:>As is one written with Carter's India ink.
Is it?
Why?
What is special about "Carter's India ink"?
:> But a gold kaddish cup would be
:>allowed, as would gold adornments for the ark.
The object of the Mitzvah, and appliances/dishes.
:>> External beauty is not the end all for Judaism.
:>Neither is external mediocrity.
What does that have to do with anything?
Why do you think Jewish beauty must be related to other works?
:> Would we compare a good wife to rubies if
:>rubies weren't a thing of beauty to be desired and admired?
Perhaps because it is very valuable?
:> The Tanakh could
:>have just as easily compared her to a hunk of granite, which, although not
:>much to look at, is solid and durable, and valued for building.
Perhaps because it is very valuable?
:>As a programmer, what is the reason for writing programs with more than
:>plain text on a plain screen if not for the beauty and attractiveness?
Marketing, allows less educated users, etc.
:> It
:>worked fine back in the days of DOS. Other than the need to add
:>illustrations for technical information, the answer is that we all like for
:>our environments to be attractive to the eye.
For the less than power, i.e., less educated user.
A power, i.e., highly educated user might very well find a plain text
interface to be much better.
:> Anyone who's visited any of
:>the "worst of the web" listings has seen what an unattractive display can do
:>to a site with otherwise good information. Most of us have customized the
:>settings on our own computers to satisfy our own needs for beauty, otherwise
:>we'd all be looking at the same defaults that Mr. Gates provided for OEM
:>installation.
I don't do it for beauty.
I do it for functionality.
:>You're right that it isn't the end-all for Judaism, but there's no reason it
:>can't be a part of our lives rather than an exception.
There is only so much one can do in life.
Beautiful thoughts and acts are much more important than works of art and
pretty buildings. Of course, this is only my opinion - you are free to
disagree.
Ron Aaron
>
> In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
> traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
> would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
>
> Why is that? Individual Jews are extremely artistic. However, this art,
Could it be that we had our fill of aesthetes while battling Greek
hedonists?
Is it not possible that there is beauty outside the realm encompassed
by Western society?
Be well,
Ron
Karen Allison
>..and when given the chance, we built some pretty impressive
>synagogues in Muslim lands, closely following the Muslim models.
>Take Toledo, for instance.
>
>
Am I wrong or did not King Ferdinand erect that synagogue for his finance
minister?
Which is not to say that it is not a thing of beauty - I have been in it and I
was incredibly moved by both its history and its beauty.
__|| _________________
_ / |_ || | l
,___ ||__l |At home in Toronto l
.|| __KRA ||_|________________l
.=( o )=====------------( o )-( o )!
Steven Goldfarb
>Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
Actually, of all the traditional Jewish ritual objects, I think tefillin
are probably the most aesthetically pleasing.
Lulavs are pretty nice, too. (and I recall seeing an esrog holder in the
Met that wasn't bad :-) )
Steven Goldfarb
A little coincidence -- there's a currently a show at the Met (in NY) for
a group called the "Nabis" -- meaning "Nevi''m". Bonnard, Vuillard, Denis,
and Roussel. Not Jews, but according to this article in Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-08-07_113283.asp
their patrons were "usually rich Jews of German or Russian descent.". The
Met's page is here:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId={1EBDBA36-4DCC-11D4-9385-00902786BF44}
Jordi Sod
[major snippage]
>I very much agree - I'm not a huge architecture fan, anyway. But I do like
>Gehry's work, and he's a Jew. Coincidence? Dunno.
I'm a huge architecture fan. :) I think it's a coincidence.
>
>>I can't say. The Mexican community has rather peculiar characteristics
>>that provide different reasons for the tackiness of some of its
>>synagogues (or the lack thereof of others). I don't see any
>>O - non-O correlation, though. Culture seems to be the key.
>
>Oh, yes -- I agree that by our standards Mexican art is tacky, but it's
>wonderful. There's definitely a Mexican aesthetic tradition - why not a
>Jewish one?
Steven, no offense done, but I do think that we have different
concepts of what "Mexican art" is. Kindly check
http://www.humanities-interactive.org/splendors/ first.
Secondly, Mexican synagogues have nothing particularly
Mexican about them. They could be anywhere in the US.
My point was that I see no noticeable correlation
btw. their aesthetic appeal (or lack thereof) and
the religious affiliation of the people who use it.
>
>>Why? I suggest:
>>a) Jews couldn't copy most Xian religious architecture. This
>>reduces the repertory of architectural styles.
>>b) Most Jews lived in poor areas, both economically and
>>architecturally. Aditionally, they had to cope with serious
>>building restrictions.
>>c) Most of the fine synagogues that did get built in C and
>>E. Europe have been destroyed. Things didn't use to be that
>>bad.
>>d) Most pseudo-Moorish experiments didn't stand the test of
>>time.
>>e) Most contemporary architecture is uninspiring anyway.
>
>This is likely true for architecture, but what about other artistic
>endeavors? We passed down so much stuff - how come no artistic heritage?
That's being a bit hard. There may not be that
much "Jewish art", but there is a lot of "art by Jews".
That's quite an achievement anyway.
>
>--sg
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Kimmel
Source please?
Eliyahu
> On 7 Aug 2001 20:18:13 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> :>news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
>
> :>> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> :>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d
could
> :>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't
care
> :>about beauty.
>
> Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
>
leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
> We don't know why He chose the way He did.
>
> :>It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
>
> Who says it is?
>
> All one can say is that you are not satisfied.
>
I've known very few people who were satisfied with everything in life. Most
of us can usually think of ways we'd like to see things improved. If any of
us were really satisfied, we probably wouldn't have any reason to be posting
here. :-)
> :>Well, there's certainly nothing redeeming about their theology (although
> :>that does open the door for a few good puns), but their music is often
great
> :>despite the subject matter. For that matter, there are some songs that
are
> :>compatible with Jewish beliefs as well. i.e., Brahm's "How Lovely Is Thy
> :>Dwelling Place," which is IMHO one of the most beautiful choral works
ever
> :>written. So why can't we do as much in music.
>
> "Sadly, with the destruction of the Bet HaMikdush, we do not have the
ability
> to enjoy the singing".
>
> There was a choir which sang during the sacrifices.
>
Are you saying that singing is now completely prohibited to us when it comes
to praising G-d, or only that we shouldn't have choirs sing during services
at the shul? If it's the latter, my question remains the same.
> :>Art on velvet has gotten a pretty bad reputation ever since Elvis fans
got a
> :>hold of it...
>
> All we can see from this is that you, from some external point of view,
find
> it tacky.
>
Where did I express my own opinion about it or call it tacky? The previous
poster used "tacky"; I did not. My point was that the proliferation of
assembly-line paintings on black velvet, usually of Elvis or of bullfighting
motifs, have given the use of velvet as a medium the reputation as being
"trailer park art."
> Is beauty so era dependent?
>
Very definitely. Should it be? Probably not, but that's how it is. The
models in many paintings of the 18th and 19th centuries would now be signing
up for Weight Watchers meetings instead of posing. Tastes have always
changed, though not so quickly as now.
> Is there no objective beauty?
>
There is. Visit Yellowstone Park, the Swiss Alps, Tahiti's beaches, or any
major astronomical observatory and you'll see things we all agree are
beautiful. The subjective beauty comes in when viewing our own creations,
not those of G-d.
> :>> The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
>
> :>> To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The
> :>beauty
> :>> important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
>
> :>Why, then, did G-d give such detailed specifications for a beautiful
Temple
> :>if physical appearances are of no consequence?
>
> Perhaps it is a coincidence? Do we know why G-d does things?
>
> You are the one insisting that there is a conflict. I am merely stating
the
> beauty in Judaism is not from structures, it is in people, their thoughts
and
> actions.
>
> I do not understand why you cannot see that.
>
> :> And there is the
tradition of
> :>doing extra things to beautify a mitzvah, whether it be in a fancy
mezuzah
> :>holder, a set of silver finials for a sefer torah,
>
> So you don't see a conflict after all?
>
Never did.
> :>> A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
>
> :>As is one written with Carter's India ink.
>
> Is it?
>
> Why?
IIUC, the ink used to write a Torah must be kosher, and made with specific
ingredients.
>
> What is special about "Carter's India ink"?
It's a commercially-made ink that isn't kosher.
>
> :>You're right that it isn't the end-all for Judaism, but there's no
reason it
> :>can't be a part of our lives rather than an exception.
>
> There is only so much one can do in life.
True. And when we have the choice between creating (or choosing/buying)
something ordinary or something of beauty, why settle for the mundane?
>
> Beautiful thoughts and acts are much more important than works of art and
> pretty buildings. Of course, this is only my opinion - you are free to
> disagree.
>
But they don't have to be mutually exclusive, either.
Joel N. Shurkin
<fla...@his.com> wrote:
Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
j
Eliyahu
"Steven Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9koojs$6fr$1...@panix6.panix.com...
>
> OK, here goes as promised.
>
> In my experience, appreciation of aesthetics is poorly lacking in
> traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but I
> would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
>
> Why is that? Individual Jews are extremely artistic. However, this art,
> including visual arts and music, is almost without exception expressed
> in a secular manner. Jews are great patrons of the arts as well, but even
> here this is rarely if ever expressed through religious outlets. In fact,
> "artistic" can almost be considered the opposite of "religious" -- that
> is, the more artistic the less religious, and vice-versa.
>
> Of course there are a few exceptions - but they're rare, and recent. (or
> ancient, but nothing in the middle)
>
quickly realized that we do, indeed, have a large and long artistic
heritage. I've spent the past while looking through "The Precious Legacy:
Judaic Treasures from the Czechoslovak State Collections" by David
Altshuler, ISBN 0-671-49498-8, and looked at not just the beautiful silver
and gold etrog containers, rimmonim, breastplates, spice boxes and menorahs,
but also at ner tamiddim, mantles, carved chairs, paintings, porcelains,
illustrated and illuminated manuscripts and books, stained glass windows,
and embroidery.
Next to that book was "From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the
Library of Congress" by Abraham J. Karp, ISBN 0-8478-1450-5. There, I found
376 pages of illuminated manuscripts, cartography, calligraphy, micrography,
and illustrative art by our own people.
I'm sure there is far more than this, but it's out there if we just look for
it.
N. Samuel R.
news:tn15esp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com...
> > Is there no objective beauty?
> >
> There is. Visit Yellowstone Park, the Swiss Alps, Tahiti's beaches, or any
> major astronomical observatory and you'll see things we all agree are
> beautiful.
Or look at the grass, trees, flowers, birds and sky outside your window, or even
the fruit and vegetables in your kitchen. Too many people neglect the natural
beauty that surrounds them in pursuit the exotic and far away.
--
'Reply-To:' field is set to correct address. Address in 'From:' field is not
checked. Please EMAIL me a copy of any *non-provocative* replies. Thank you.
"The Sabbath!...delight of spirits and bliss of souls..." - 'Kah Echsof', R'
Aharon of Karlin, zt'l (Artscroll translation)
N. Samuel R.
news:4db5e727.01080...@posting.google.com...
>But still
> we are stuck in what I see as a chaotic and relatively
> lousy period in architecture.
May that be the worst of our problems!
Susan Cohen
Eliyahu wrote:
> "Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com...
> >
> > Is beauty so era dependent?
> >
> Very definitely. Should it be? Probably not, but that's how it is. The
> models in many paintings of the 18th and 19th centuries would now be signing
> up for Weight Watchers meetings instead of posing. Tastes have always
> changed, though not so quickly as now.
>
> > Is there no objective beauty?
> >
> There is. Visit Yellowstone Park, the Swiss Alps, Tahiti's beaches, or any
> major astronomical observatory and you'll see things we all agree are
> beautiful. The subjective beauty comes in when viewing our own creations,
> not those of G-d.
(Except, of course, with His creation of us - see paragraph previous :-> )
Susan
Steven Goldfarb
>Steven, no offense done, but I do think that we have different
>concepts of what "Mexican art" is. Kindly check
>http://www.humanities-interactive.org/splendors/ first.
I'm not following your point -- I'm familiar in general with Mexican art,
sure. Your reference points to some of what I'd consider pre-Mexican art -
Aztec, Mayan, etc., but we can include that in. I think it'd be fair to
say that Mexican art isn't subtle -- the contemporary stuff could even be
called gaudy. The ancient stuff is... extreme. But it's way cool. Bright
colors, highly decorated, very baroque, often somewhat "folksy" as opposed
to highly refined. But very powerful, very passionate. And looking at that
Web site, coming from a long, well-established cultural heritage. So where
do our concepts of Mexican art differ?
>That's being a bit hard. There may not be that
>much "Jewish art", but there is a lot of "art by Jews".
>That's quite an achievement anyway.
That's precisely my point -- there's a great deal of art by Jews. We're a
very artistic, aesthetic people. But it's all "art by Jews," not "Jewish
art." I don't think there's such a thing as "Jewish art." Maybe it's a
national thing, not a religious thing. Gotta think about that.
Susan Cohen
"Joel N. Shurkin" wrote:
> Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
>
> j
Name a Xtian stained glass artist.
We all know a Jewish one.
(AFAIK, they're all anonymous)
Susan
Steven Goldfarb
>Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
Frank Gehry, Marcel Breuer, Richard Meier... see Jewhoo.com (not that I'm
a huge Meier fan, but as I said earlier I like Gehry's work a lot)
--sg
>j
Steven Goldfarb
>After writing my previous post on this topic, I dug through my library and
>quickly realized that we do, indeed, have a large and long artistic
>heritage. I've spent the past while looking through "The Precious Legacy:
>Judaic Treasures from the Czechoslovak State Collections" by David
>Altshuler, ISBN 0-671-49498-8, and looked at not just the beautiful silver
>and gold etrog containers, rimmonim, breastplates, spice boxes and menorahs,
>but also at ner tamiddim, mantles, carved chairs, paintings, porcelains,
>illustrated and illuminated manuscripts and books, stained glass windows,
>and embroidery.
I'm sure there are many examples of individual works -- given that we're
such a creative people today, we must have been creative historically too.
But I'm looking for evidence of a "Jewish aesthetic." Is there such a
thing? Or maybe it's aesthetic culture is nation-based, not religion
based. Yeah, we talk about Byzantine art and Islamic art, but are they
religious cultures, or simply national cultures? Is there such a thing as
Christian art, or is it just Venetion, or Flemish?
My thought is that nationality, i.e., physical location, have a lot to do
with it but that there is still some thread of "cultural heritage" -- that
there is a commonality to Catholic art, Byzantine art, Islamic art, etc.,
but that there doesn't seem to be such a thing as Jewish art.
>Next to that book was "From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the
>Library of Congress" by Abraham J. Karp, ISBN 0-8478-1450-5. There, I found
>376 pages of illuminated manuscripts, cartography, calligraphy, micrography,
>and illustrative art by our own people.
Sounds like an interesting book - I'll have to look for it.
--sg
>I'm sure there is far more than this, but it's out there if we just look for
>it.
>--
>Eliyahu Rooff
>www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
>RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Steven Goldfarb
>Or look at the grass, trees, flowers, birds and sky outside your window, or even
>the fruit and vegetables in your kitchen. Too many people neglect the natural
>beauty that surrounds them in pursuit the exotic and far away.
I agree with this. One member of the Detroit kollel was a guy I liked a
lot, used to learn with him, stayed with his family on many a shabbos.
Born O - from a highly respected Monsey family - great guy. My family once
accompanied a segment of the Detroit O community, including this family,
on a sort of "retreat" to a town on Lake Huron, it was a lot of fun. But
Mordechai was one of the only people willing to walk in the
woods, to smell the roses, so to speak. He understood about the beauty of
nature -- but he was the exception. The others tolerated it, smiled at it,
but nobody else walked in the woods with us.
Much of that stems from being city folk. But there was also an element of
"we Jews aren't really of this world, we're above it." Someone actually
said that to me, I forget who.
Our ancestors were shepherds -- they were highly attuned to nature.
Where'd that go?
--sg
>--
>'Reply-To:' field is set to correct address. Address in 'From:' field is not
>checked. Please EMAIL me a copy of any *non-provocative* replies. Thank you.
>"The Sabbath!...delight of spirits and bliss of souls..." - 'Kah Echsof', R'
>Aharon of Karlin, zt'l (Artscroll translation)
Colin Rosenthal
Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Polished black
>leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
Now there's a sentence which looks interesting when taken out of
context :-)
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb)
>Subject:Re: Jewish Aesthetics (or lack thereof)
>Date: 8 Aug 2001 03:59:59 GMT
>Message-ID:<9kqdgg$r41$1...@panix3.panix.com>
>In <tn17hpk...@corp.supernews.com> "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>After writing my previous post on this topic, I dug through my library and
>>quickly realized that we do, indeed, have a large and long artistic
>>heritage. I've spent the past while looking through "The Precious Legacy:
>>Judaic Treasures from the Czechoslovak State Collections" by David
>>Altshuler, ISBN 0-671-49498-8, and looked at not just the beautiful silver
>>and gold etrog containers, rimmonim, breastplates, spice boxes and menorahs,
>>but also at ner tamiddim, mantles, carved chairs, paintings, porcelains,
>>illustrated and illuminated manuscripts and books, stained glass windows,
>>and embroidery.
>
>I'm sure there are many examples of individual works -- given that we're
>such a creative people today, we must have been creative historically too.
>But I'm looking for evidence of a "Jewish aesthetic." Is there such a
>thing? Or maybe it's aesthetic culture is nation-based, not religion
There is a Journal of Jewish Art. Hebrew University has a database (accesible
over the Internet) of Jewish art through their library website.
Josh
>based. Yeah, we talk about Byzantine art and Islamic art, but are they
>religious cultures, or simply national cultures? Is there such a thing as
>Christian art, or is it just Venetion, or Flemish?
>
>My thought is that nationality, i.e., physical location, have a lot to do
>with it but that there is still some thread of "cultural heritage" -- that
>there is a commonality to Catholic art, Byzantine art, Islamic art, etc.,
>but that there doesn't seem to be such a thing as Jewish art.
>
>>Next to that book was "From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the
>>Library of Congress" by Abraham J. Karp, ISBN 0-8478-1450-5. There, I found
>>376 pages of illuminated manuscripts, cartography, calligraphy, micrography,
>>and illustrative art by our own people.
>
>Sounds like an interesting book - I'll have to look for it.
>--sg
>
>>I'm sure there is far more than this, but it's out there if we just look for
>>it.
>>--
>>Eliyahu Rooff
>>www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
>>RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
N. Samuel R.
> In <9kq9fi$61qd7$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de> "N. Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>
>
> >Or look at the grass, trees, flowers, birds and sky outside your window, or
even
> >the fruit and vegetables in your kitchen. Too many people neglect the natural
> >beauty that surrounds them in pursuit the exotic and far away.
>
> I agree with this.
>But there was also an element of
> "we Jews aren't really of this world, we're above it."
That's actually true, we are above nature in many ways, but it's not a
contradiction to what I said and to the value and importance of recognizing the
wisdom of The Creator in all of his creation.
See Sefer Chovos HaLevovos, Shaar Hebechina.
Binyamin Dissen
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com...
:>> On 7 Aug 2001 20:18:13 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>> :>news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
:>> :>> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
:>> :>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d
:>could
:>> :>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't
:>care
:>> :>about beauty.
:>> Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
:>From the aesthetics standpoint, what's wrong with them? Polished black
:>leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
Then Jews use beautiful artwork every day.
:>> We don't know why He chose the way He did.
:>> :>It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
:>> Who says it is?
:>> All one can say is that you are not satisfied.
:>I've known very few people who were satisfied with everything in life. Most
:>of us can usually think of ways we'd like to see things improved. If any of
:>us were really satisfied, we probably wouldn't have any reason to be posting
:>here. :-)
:>> :>Well, there's certainly nothing redeeming about their theology (although
:>> :>that does open the door for a few good puns), but their music is often
:>great
:>> :>despite the subject matter. For that matter, there are some songs that
:>are
:>> :>compatible with Jewish beliefs as well. i.e., Brahm's "How Lovely Is Thy
:>> :>Dwelling Place," which is IMHO one of the most beautiful choral works
:>ever
:>> :>written. So why can't we do as much in music.
:>> "Sadly, with the destruction of the Bet HaMikdush, we do not have the
:>ability
:>> to enjoy the singing".
:>> There was a choir which sang during the sacrifices.
:>Are you saying that singing is now completely prohibited to us when it comes
:>to praising G-d, or only that we shouldn't have choirs sing during services
:>at the shul? If it's the latter, my question remains the same.
(1) - no, (2) - I don't know. I would find it an annoying distraction.
Merely pointing out that singing and music is very much a part of Judaism.
:>> :>Art on velvet has gotten a pretty bad reputation ever since Elvis fans
:>got a
:>> :>hold of it...
:>> All we can see from this is that you, from some external point of view,
:>find
:>> it tacky.
:>Where did I express my own opinion about it or call it tacky? The previous
:>poster used "tacky"; I did not. My point was that the proliferation of
:>assembly-line paintings on black velvet, usually of Elvis or of bullfighting
:>motifs, have given the use of velvet as a medium the reputation as being
:>"trailer park art."
And we all know the reputation of Jews.
:>> Is beauty so era dependent?
:>Very definitely. Should it be? Probably not, but that's how it is. The
:>models in many paintings of the 18th and 19th centuries would now be signing
:>up for Weight Watchers meetings instead of posing. Tastes have always
:>changed, though not so quickly as now.
Perhaps a reason to avoid art of people?
:>> Is there no objective beauty?
:>There is. Visit Yellowstone Park, the Swiss Alps, Tahiti's beaches, or any
:>major astronomical observatory and you'll see things we all agree are
:>beautiful. The subjective beauty comes in when viewing our own creations,
:>not those of G-d.
Then the argument becomes why doesn't Judaism use things that X finds
beautiful.
:>> :>> The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
:>> :>> To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The
:>> :>beauty
:>> :>> important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
:>> :>Why, then, did G-d give such detailed specifications for a beautiful
:>Temple
:>> :>if physical appearances are of no consequence?
:>> Perhaps it is a coincidence? Do we know why G-d does things?
:>> You are the one insisting that there is a conflict. I am merely stating
:>the
:>> beauty in Judaism is not from structures, it is in people, their thoughts
:>and
:>> actions.
:>> I do not understand why you cannot see that.
:>> :> And there is the
:>tradition of
:>> :>doing extra things to beautify a mitzvah, whether it be in a fancy
:>mezuzah
:>> :>holder, a set of silver finials for a sefer torah,
:>> So you don't see a conflict after all?
:>Never did.
My misunderstanding.
:>> :>> A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
:>> :>As is one written with Carter's India ink.
:>> Is it?
:>> Why?
:>IIUC, the ink used to write a Torah must be kosher, and made with specific
:>ingredients.
Quite a few ingredients, and it does not have to be kosher. If made from
animals, the animals must be in the kosher set.
:>> What is special about "Carter's India ink"?
:>It's a commercially-made ink that isn't kosher.
Even if true, that alone is not a problem.
:>> :>You're right that it isn't the end-all for Judaism, but there's no
:>reason it
:>> :>can't be a part of our lives rather than an exception.
:>> There is only so much one can do in life.
:>True. And when we have the choice between creating (or choosing/buying)
:>something ordinary or something of beauty, why settle for the mundane?
If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
beauty?
Priorities, priorities.
:>> Beautiful thoughts and acts are much more important than works of art and
:>> pretty buildings. Of course, this is only my opinion - you are free to
:>> disagree.
:>But they don't have to be mutually exclusive, either.
One can only do so much.
Dan Kimmel
news:9kr0ei$3t3$9...@readme.uio.no...
> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT,
> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Polished black
> >leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
>
> Now there's a sentence which looks interesting when taken out of
> context :-)
Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with all
the men wrapped in black leather straps.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Aesthetics (or lack thereof)
This reminds me of our then 3 year old who when visiting at the local zoo
saw a zebra and asked, "IS HE WEARING A TALLIS??" :-)
Josh
Steven Goldfarb
>There is a Journal of Jewish Art. Hebrew University has a database (accesible
>over the Internet) of Jewish art through their library website.
I found the link to the purchase the journal, and it looks very
interesting. Haven't found the online version yet - like most
universities, this website isn't so good, the navigation is awful - but
I'll find it. Thanks.
--sg
Eliyahu
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8H8c7.38436$gj1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I could just see the B&D crowd nodding enthusiastically as I wrote it, but
figured we don't have too many of them lurking here anyhow... :-)
Micha Berger
: Lulavs are pretty nice, too. (and I recall seeing an esrog holder in the
Esrog holders are a popular subject of artistic embellishment. As are
mezuzah cases, spice boxes for havdalah, Shabbos candelabras, Chanukah
menorahs and Megillah cases.
As for lulav... Freud would have a lot to say about the lulav and esrog.
Interestingly, the symbology is used as /thanks/ for a fertile season, not
as a request for one. A non-magical twist to the theme in that it's not
a paganesque attempt to make something occur by imitating it.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Micha Berger
: Our ancestors were shepherds -- they were highly attuned to nature.
: Where'd that go?
As evidenced by the holidays, this being attuned to nature was an important
element that we lost. Some of it can be recovered by praying at the earliest
possible time; it makes you much more aware of the change in days that
comes with the seasons.
R' Marc Angel (of NY's Spanish and Portugese Synagogue) argues that Sepharadim
preserved this attitude much longer than Ashkenazim did, and are only losing
it now as they assimilate into Ashkenazi culture. RMA blames the loss on
over-exposure to Christianity. He also notes the connection that you did --
not only is theirs a more outdoors religion, Sepharadim produced far more
poetry and arts.
Micha Berger
: Here we have a problem. The pinnacle of Christian architecture
: -- the gothic cathedral --- is an unsuitable model for a synagogue.
: It is very much image-oriented...
It's also very oriented toward isolating man from the world. Stained glass
makes the lighting surreal, as the organ music does the sound.
It comes from the idea of religion as a retreat, a recharge, from dealing
with "the real world".
Judaism is about suffusing that world with religion. To paraphrase the
Seridei Eish: the world is the substance, Torah is the form.
[Rest of interesting post snipped.]
Micha Berger
: There is a Journal of Jewish Art. Hebrew University has a database (accesible
: over the Internet) of Jewish art through their library website.
I think it's easy to show that there is a Jewish aesthetic tradition.
(Actually, many of them.) What's harder is to explain why it is so much
smaller than that of other religious communities. (Assuming it is.)
wba...@panix.com
: "Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
: news:jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com...
:> On 7 Aug 2001 20:18:13 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:> :>news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
:>
:> :>> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
:>
:> :>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d
: could
:> :>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't
: care
:> :>about beauty.
:>
:> Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
:>
: From the aesthetics standpoint, what's wrong with them? Polished black
: leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
:> We don't know why He chose the way He did.
:>
:> :>It shows that religion and beauty don't have to be mutually exclusive.
:>
:> Who says it is?
:>
:> All one can say is that you are not satisfied.
:>
: I've known very few people who were satisfied with everything in life. Most
: of us can usually think of ways we'd like to see things improved. If any of
: us were really satisfied, we probably wouldn't have any reason to be posting
: here. :-)
I have just looked into this thread and havn't red many post yet, but I
wonder if the concept of Hiddur Mitzvah couldn't help with general
asthetics. Micha mentioned the decorated etrog box. Why not an elegant
shul for davvening? This should not be unjewish. Of course, one person's
elegant is another persons painting on velvet. Taste needs to be
cultivated and that doen't seem "unjewish" to me.
Wendy Baker
Jordi Sod
> In <3B73...@MailAndNews.com> Jordi Sod <jord...@MailAndNews.com> writes:
>
> >Steven, no offense done, but I do think that we have different
> >concepts of what "Mexican art" is. Kindly check
> >http://www.humanities-interactive.org/splendors/ first.
>
> I'm not following your point -- I'm familiar in general with Mexican art,
> sure. Your reference points to some of what I'd consider pre-Mexican art -
> Aztec, Mayan, etc., but we can include that in. I think it'd be fair to
> say that Mexican art isn't subtle -- the contemporary stuff could even be
> called gaudy. The ancient stuff is... extreme. But it's way cool. Bright
> colors, highly decorated, very baroque, often somewhat "folksy" as opposed
> to highly refined. But very powerful, very passionate. And looking at that
Would you classify the colonial works necessarily as folksy?
But it can be as refined as they come. Consider the works of Rivera --
who even had a fine cubist period --, or for a change of venue, consider
Pritzker-prize winning architect Luis Barragán, at
http://www.pritzkerprize.com/barragan/barraganpg.htm
or photographer Manuel Alvarez Bravo, at
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/alvarezbravo/ .
> Web site, coming from a long, well-established cultural heritage. So where
> do our concepts of Mexican art differ?
... well, you called it "tacky," even though now you have given
a more nuanced view. I just wish to point out that Mexican art
runs the gamut from often flashy folk art to very refined
"high art." Often folks outside Mexico only get exposed to
a limited selection that does not hint to its actual diversity.
Then again, you may be right about "the big picture".
>
>
> >That's being a bit hard. There may not be that
> >much "Jewish art", but there is a lot of "art by Jews".
> >That's quite an achievement anyway.
>
> That's precisely my point -- there's a great deal of art by Jews. We're a
> very artistic, aesthetic people. But it's all "art by Jews," not "Jewish
> art." I don't think there's such a thing as "Jewish art." Maybe it's a
> national thing, not a religious thing. Gotta think about that.
Indeed. I wish I could come up with some interesting ideas why this
is so, but right now I have none to share. :(
>
> --sg
Jordi
Jordi Sod
> Jordi Sod writes:
>
> >..and when given the chance, we built some pretty impressive
> >synagogues in Muslim lands, closely following the Muslim models.
> >Take Toledo, for instance.
> >
> >
>
> Am I wrong or did not King Ferdinand erect that synagogue for his finance
> minister?
Almost there. From http://www.cesaraugusta.com/mudejar/03/toledo/transito.htm
it was commissioned by Pedro I for finance minister Samuel Ha-Levi.
> Which is not to say that it is not a thing of beauty - I have been in it and I
> was incredibly moved by both its history and its beauty.
Almost all major works of architecture have been commissioned by some
rich and powerful person or group of persons. Why should the Sinagoga
del Tránsito be an exception?
Lucky you. I've yet to go to Spain! :)
>
>
> __|| _________________
> _ / |_ || | l
> ,___ ||__l |At home in Toronto l
> .|| __KRA ||_|________________l
> .=( o )=====------------( o )-( o )!
Cool .sig!
Jordi
Jordi Sod
> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
> beauty?
Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge. Not necessarily
Torah, but knowledge nonetheless. And just as there is a place
for learning, and for family, and for business, and for
many other things, there must be a place for the simple
enjoyment of beauty.
Jordi
Steven Goldfarb
>... well, you called it "tacky," even though now you have given
>a more nuanced view. I just wish to point out that Mexican art
>runs the gamut from often flashy folk art to very refined
>"high art." Often folks outside Mexico only get exposed to
>a limited selection that does not hint to its actual diversity.
>Then again, you may be right about "the big picture".
Oh! Sorry about that -- I didn't express myself well. I certainly didn't
mean to call Mexican art tacky. IIRC I was simply trying to address the
charge that I was applying my own subjective standard of aesthetics, and
trying to show how Mexican art uses a somewhat different standard, and
often succeeds admirably.
That is, I'm not saying things have to look a certain way, I'm wondering
about the absence of a common aesthetic heritage. I certainly agree that
there are highly refined Mexican artists, but I think the very strong folk
art tradition is more relevant to the discussion at hand. It seems to be a
tradition that can be traced right back to those Aztec statues, and the
influence of Spanish Catholics is also pretty clear. It's very cool. But
the point being when you look at a Mexican artist, whether it's Diego
Rivera or the guy selling the black velvet Madonna on the street corner in
LA, you can relate what he's doing to that ancient heritage, and talk
about his or her influences, and how they're being interpreted.
With art by Jews, I don't think there's really much to say regarding their
Jewish influences, except perhaps in terms of subject matter.
Binyamin Dissen
:>"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
:>news:8H8c7.38436$gj1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:>> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
:>> news:9kr0ei$3t3$9...@readme.uio.no...
:>> > On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT,
:>> > Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> > >Polished black
:>> > >leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
:>> > Now there's a sentence which looks interesting when taken out of
:>> > context :-)
:>> Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
:>> knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with
:>all
:>> the men wrapped in black leather straps.
:>I could just see the B&D crowd nodding enthusiastically as I wrote it, but
:>figured we don't have too many of them lurking here anyhow... :-)
I have been told by stewardesses that I was scaring the passengers.
Deuteronomy 28:10.
Elizabeth M. Levin
: In <jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com> Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> writes:
: >Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
: Actually, of all the traditional Jewish ritual objects, I think tefillin
: are probably the most aesthetically pleasing.
Ah. Modern aesthetic. Clean lines, that kind of thing. I think the problem
is that you're looking for a fashionable aesthetic. Right now the
Mediterranean is in, which would explain why Sephardim escape the
stricture. So are the plain box styles, which tefillin fit. However the
heavily decorated styles that constitute the traditional aesthetic are not
currently fashionable.
Me, I kinda like those, too- heavy silver seder plates, papercut
mizrachim, ornate mezzuzot, embroidered velvet talit bags, large brass
hannukiot that have tons of detail, etc.
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
N. Samuel R.
news:9krlos$eeu$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> As for lulav... Freud would have a lot to say about the lulav and esrog.
> Interestingly, the symbology is used as /thanks/ for a fertile season, not
> as a request for one. A non-magical twist to the theme in that it's not
> a paganesque attempt to make something occur by imitating it.
!!!!??????!!!!!!!!!!
What the (&*Y)&*^(*(& does any of this have to do with *our* performance of the
***mitzvah*** of the arba minim as commanded by ****G-d*** in his holy
***Torah***??
There is no signifiance to the phallic symbolism some may see in this mitzvah
other than a reflection of the mindset of those who see it.
The practices of Pagans and the theories and ideas of Freud have no relevance
whatsoever to this mitzvah.
This, along with some of your other recent posts, show that you are exhibiting
the trait of seeing the Torah through the prism of secularism that many here are
known for.
What would your rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, have said in reply to a post like
this?
Elizabeth M. Levin
: I'm sure there are many examples of individual works -- given that we're
: such a creative people today, we must have been creative historically too.
: But I'm looking for evidence of a "Jewish aesthetic." Is there such a
: thing? Or maybe it's aesthetic culture is nation-based, not religion
: based. Yeah, we talk about Byzantine art and Islamic art, but are they
: religious cultures, or simply national cultures? Is there such a thing as
: Christian art, or is it just Venetion, or Flemish?
Time and place have _a lot_ to do with it. Would you say there's a single
"Buddhist aesthetic"? Remember, it has to encompass zen and those cool
Thai sculptures with all the squiggles...
: My thought is that nationality, i.e., physical location, have a lot to do
: with it but that there is still some thread of "cultural heritage" -- that
: there is a commonality to Catholic art, Byzantine art, Islamic art, etc.,
: but that there doesn't seem to be such a thing as Jewish art.
Well Byzantine is closer to "national". As for Catholic art, well- I would
be hard pressed to think of any similarity other than subject between an
El Greco of the crucifixion and a Peruvian "cheerful Jesus" crucifix.
Islamic art also varies quite a bit...
Sharon Adams
beautiful things such as synagogues to match churches and mosques....
My answer, purely from my heart, would that a) Judaism is about the person
and hence the family, mostly in the home, and b) we have so many beautiful
ideas - including the one that *every* Jew is precious beyond jewels - that
we don't need such impressive places, echoing and grand. We have
ourselves...a monument that cannot be torn down.
Regards
Sharon
Binyamin Dissen
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
:>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
:>> beauty?
:>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
:> Not necessarily
:>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
The same with x-rated movies.
:> And just as there is a place
:>for learning, and for family, and for business, and for
:>many other things, there must be a place for the simple
:>enjoyment of beauty.
Why?
N. Samuel R.
news:9krqm8$3g0$1...@news.panix.com...
> I have just looked into this thread and havn't red many post yet, but I
> wonder if the concept of Hiddur Mitzvah couldn't help with general
> asthetics. Micha mentioned the decorated etrog box. Why not an elegant
> shul for davvening?
There are many.
> This should not be unjewish. Of course, one person's
> elegant is another persons painting on velvet. Taste needs to be
> cultivated and that doen't seem "unjewish" to me.
Don't you see the contradiction between the last two sentences?
Beauty and taste in are in the eyes of the beholder; they are highly subjective.
When you say that "taste needs to be cultivated" you are implying that *your*
taste should be imposed upon others.
Eliyahu
> On 8 Aug 2001 17:34:35 GMT jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) wrote:
>
> :>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
>
> :>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object
of
> :>> beauty?
Who said anything about taking time from learning or from family? Few of us
spend every waking hour in study, and the aquisition of a thing of beauty
might well be a family activity. Would you be more approving if one took the
time out from posting to the internet instead? :-)
>
> :>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
>
> As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
>
> :> Not necessarily
> :>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
>
> The same with x-rated movies.
>
Are you attempting to equate the two, or suggesting that both of them should
be forbidden? If Jordi had written that there are beautiful flowers in
nature, would you have responded by pointing to the existence of dung piles?
What's the point?
Jordi Sod
=====
>On 8 Aug 2001 17:34:35 GMT jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) wrote:
>
>:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
>
>:>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
>:>> beauty?
>
>
>As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
Not all good knowledge is Torah knowledge. Otherwise, why
do we have the following brachot?
From the transliterated siddur by Jordan Lee Wagner, at
http://siddur.webjew.org/ :
On seeing an outstanding secular scholar:
Ba-ruch a-tah A-do-nai E-lo-hei-nu Me-lech Ha-o-lam,
she-na-tan mei-chach-ma-to l'va-sar va-dam..
Blessed are You, HaShem, our God, King of the Universe,
who has given of His knowledge to flesh and blood.
----
On seeing an exceptionally beautiful person, tree, or field
(and I wonder... fine works of art?):
Ba-ruch a-tah A-do-nai E-lo-hei-nu Me-lech Ha-o-lam,
she-ka-cha lo ba-o-la-mo.
Blessed are You, HaShem, our God, King of the Universe,
who has this in His universe.
----
By denying the value of beauty, you turn a blind
eye to a parcel of G-d's creation. Why don't
not thank Him instead when, say, you see a painting
you like?
>
>:> Not necessarily
>:>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
>
>The same with x-rated movies.
What's the bracha for seeing x-rated movies, Mr. Dissen?
>
>:> And just as there is a place
>:>for learning, and for family, and for business, and for
>:>many other things, there must be a place for the simple
>:>enjoyment of beauty.
>
>Why?
To become a whole person. To deny one's power to enjoy
beauty is to deny a (GOOD!) part of oneself.
>
>--
>Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
>Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
>http://www.dissensoftware.com
Jordi
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jordi Sod
>Steven Goldfarb (s...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm sure there are many examples of individual works -- given that we're
>: such a creative people today, we must have been creative historically too.
>: But I'm looking for evidence of a "Jewish aesthetic." Is there such a
>: thing? Or maybe it's aesthetic culture is nation-based, not religion
>: based. Yeah, we talk about Byzantine art and Islamic art, but are they
>: religious cultures, or simply national cultures? Is there such a thing as
>: Christian art, or is it just Venetion, or Flemish?
>
>Time and place have _a lot_ to do with it. Would you say there's a single
>"Buddhist aesthetic"? Remember, it has to encompass zen and those cool
>Thai sculptures with all the squiggles...
Indeed, it's difficult to talk about the aesthetic of a specific
religion. At most, one can discuss the influence that religion
has on aesthetic theory and practice -- and can discuss the
evolution of iconography, etc.
>
>: My thought is that nationality, i.e., physical location, have a lot to do
>: with it but that there is still some thread of "cultural heritage" -- that
>: there is a commonality to Catholic art, Byzantine art, Islamic art, etc.,
>: but that there doesn't seem to be such a thing as Jewish art.
>
>Well Byzantine is closer to "national". As for Catholic art, well- I would
Hard to say. Byzantium had extremely shifting borders, and its cultural
influence went far beyond these borders. Witness the byzantine influence
in Romanian or Russian art (and perhaps ethiopian?).
>be hard pressed to think of any similarity other than subject between an
>El Greco of the crucifixion and a Peruvian "cheerful Jesus" crucifix.
>Islamic art also varies quite a bit...
Anyway, going back to Jewish stuff, a google search for wooden synagogues
gave me a couple of cool pages:
http://www.wzo.org.il/juice/art/3/index.htm (check this out!)
http://www.igc.org/ddickerson/polish-synagogues.html
This and other stuff at
http://www.google.com/search?q=wooden+synagogue
Joel N. Shurkin
<fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Joel N. Shurkin" wrote:
>
>> Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
>>
>> j
>
> Name a Xtian stained glass artist.
> We all know a Jewish one.
> (AFAIK, they're all anonymous)
>
> Susan
The guys who did all the cathedrals and churches in Europe.
j
Joel N. Shurkin
Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <B79610D5.B43E%shu...@earthlink.net> "Joel N. Shurkin"
> <shu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>> Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
>
> Frank Gehry, Marcel Breuer, Richard Meier... see Jewhoo.com (not that I'm
> a huge Meier fan, but as I said earlier I like Gehry's work a lot)
>
> --sg
>
>> j
Don't know Breaur or Meier. Heard of Gehry and didn't know he was Jewish.
j
Joel N. Shurkin
"BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL" <BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote:
Was he Jewish?
j
Joel N. Shurkin
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2001 09:38:45 GMT, BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : There is a Journal of Jewish Art. Hebrew University has a database
> (accesible
> : over the Internet) of Jewish art through their library website.
>
> I think it's easy to show that there is a Jewish aesthetic tradition.
> (Actually, many of them.) What's harder is to explain why it is so much
> smaller than that of other religious communities. (Assuming it is.)
>
> -mi
I think that's what we are trying to say. I think you are correct.
j
Yisroel Markov
> > On 7 Aug 2001 20:18:13 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > :>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
>
> > :>> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> > :>> :>traditional Judaism. This is still evidenced in the O community, but
> I
> > :>> :>would suggest this lack of interest in art goes back much further.
>
> > :>> :>Why is this? I think the Torah is clear that aesthetics were
> important
> at
> > :>> :>one time. Look at the design of the Temple -- it doesn't say "put
> together
> > :>> :>a shack, maybe find a nice cheap coat of paint, and perhaps some
> folding
> > :>> :>chairs." The Torah goes to great lengths to describe how beautiful
> the
> > :>> :>building is supposed to be, right?
>
> > :>> The Torah gives EXACT details on how to build things.
>
> > :>Yes, and those exact details specify a very beautiful structure. G-d
> could
> > :>have just as easily specified a box-like hut with a bimah if He didn't
> care
> > :>about beauty.
> >
>
AFAIK He didn't. The batim (boxes) of tefillin can be any color; black
is a common minhag. The retzuot (straps), OTOH, do have to be black.
That's a halacha L'Moshe mi-Sinai, IOW, a rule with no textual basis
anywhere, as most of the laws of tefillin are.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Joel N. Shurkin
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2001 14:29:23 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> :>news:8H8c7.38436$gj1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> :>> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
> :>> news:9kr0ei$3t3$9...@readme.uio.no...
>
> :>> > On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT,
> :>> > Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>> > >Polished black
> :>> > >leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
>
> :>> > Now there's a sentence which looks interesting when taken out of
> :>> > context :-)
>
> :>> Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
> :>> knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with
> :>all
> :>> the men wrapped in black leather straps.
>
> :>I could just see the B&D crowd nodding enthusiastically as I wrote it, but
> :>figured we don't have too many of them lurking here anyhow... :-)
>
> I have been told by stewardesses that I was scaring the passengers.
>
> Deuteronomy 28:10.
If it keeps the plane in the air, you just go right on praying son.
J
N. Samuel R.
news:4db5e727.01080...@posting.google.com...
>And just as there is a place
> for learning, and for family, and for business, and for
> many other things, there must be a place for the simple
> enjoyment of beauty.
And what about those people who simply enjoy the beauty that surrounds them in
everyday life: the fruits, vegetables, trees , plants, flowers, animals, and sky
that are all bursting with spectacular color? The radiance and splendor of the
sun, moon and stars? The beautiful song of the birds? The spectacular designs on
the fur of the stray cats that roam the streets and that I meet when I put the
garbage out?
----
N. Samuel R.
news:uopvmtgmius34b2pe...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Aug 2001 12:57:17 GMT s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) wrote:
> Never heard Chassidic niggunim, I presume?
As I have made reference to in the past, there are many absolutely beautiful and
highly moving Chassidic nigunim. I suggest to Mr. Goldfard that he start with
some Modzitzer and Skulener recordings. For cantorial, Yossele Rosenblatt is a
must and he was one of the few truly observant famous chazzonim of his time.
> :>So where's ours? Why is Jewish art so tacky? How come mosques are so
> :>beautiful, and synogogues (with a couple exceptions) are so ugly? They've
> :>got mosaics, we've got blue velvet torah covers with gold lions engraved
> :>on them.
Material beauty and art are in the eye of the beholder. **You** find this
example"tacky" and "ugly". I and many others feel they are beautiful and great
works of art in their own right.
My tefillin bag, the type which is predominate, is navy with the word 'tefillin'
and my Hebrew name embroidered in gold-colored thread, along with a floral -like
image and a crown. My mother, who is an artist and who is not observant, likes
it.
There are two shuls in Borough Park that just spectacularly beautiful and grand-
must sees:
Bobov ,between 47th and 48th streets on 15 th Avenue and Munkatch, between 46th
and 47th streets on 14th Avenue.
The newly-renovated Emunas Yisroel on 16th Avenue between 43rd and 44th streets
is also quite impressive in it's own right.
Go take a look at these three sometimes and then let us know what you think.
They are all very contemporary in design and style.
> Perhaps because to Judaism the beauty is completely different?
>
> The beauty of a Torah thought, for example.
>
> To the Jew, this world is merely a gateway into the world to come. The beauty
> important to the Jew is inner beauty and the beauty of the Torah.
*Beautifully* stated. :o)
The whole Torah lifestyle is completely different. When people's daily lives are
dedicated to and occupied with a higher purpose and calling, aesthetic concerns
become much less important. Another thing is that with many children, the type
of aesthetic and artistic standards that S.G. is talking about are impractical.
Contrast those people with few, if any, children who are concerned with keeping
their 'high-class' art collections and decor` in perfect condition, with those
who have many children running around. It is the latter who are overwhelmingly
more truly happy.
Appearance is important though, and the Torah requires that we look presentable
but this means being clean, neat and well-groomed, not being concerned with
aesthetics on the level that S.G. is referring to.
There is a specific mitzvah to beautify mitzvos: such as buying the finest
tefillin and mezzuzos one can afford, the choicest arba minim (lulav, esrog,
hadassim and aravos), building beautiful shuls, etc.
> :>Micah suggested that it's money -- O Jews just don't have the money for
> :>aesthetics. But I'm not buying that. Taste isn't necessarily expensive. In
> :>my experience with the O community, they simply don't even see the
> :>aesthetic side of life. They aren't tuned to it.
As Binyamin and I already pointed-out, they've got better fish to fry.
> Subject to YOUR definition of "aesthetics".
>
> :>Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
> :>ugliness all the time.
Yes it is but not necessarily what you would consider ugliness and what you are
referring-to. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by anything that is not
in accordance with the Torah. In fact, is it is extremely detrimental and
dangerous to the soul. Being surrounded by what you (and at least in many
cases, likely I as well) would consider 'tacky' decor is not bad for the soul at
all.
>And O environments are often particularly ugly.
> One wonders why you are so concerned about the externals of a temporary world.
>
> :>Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
> :>changed?
>
> Might I suggest that you study, to appreciate the beauty of the Torah?
>
> Gold plated Teffilin are invalid.
>
> A Torah written with gold ink is invalid.
>
> External beauty is not the end all for Judaism.
>
> --
> Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
> Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
There are two of you now? :o)
I can never understand when people give 2 addresses like this. How are people
supposed to know which one to use?
> http://www.dissensoftware.com
Notes:
[1] There is a story that another chazzan once asked Yossele Rosenblatt why he
got paid twice as much as he did. Rosenblatt replied, "Because I get paid for
two shmoneh esrais while you only get paid for one" ('shmoneh esrai' or 'amidah'
is the silent devotional prayer. It seems that at least many of the non-frum
chazzonim used to not even bother reciting it
Susan Cohen
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2001 17:34:35 GMT jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) wrote:
>
> :>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
>
> :>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
> :>> beauty?
>
> :>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
>
> As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
Know your enemy.
Susan
Joel N. Shurkin
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2001 17:34:35 GMT jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) wrote:
>
> :>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
>
> :>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object of
> :>> beauty?
>
> :>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
How about knowledge of Shakespeare or Hemingway or Faulkner or Mann or
Dostoyevsky or Dante, or the movies of Frank Capra or Francis Ford Copolla
or the paintings of the Renaissance masters or a Mozart concerto and a
Copeland ballet?
>
> As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
>
> :> Not necessarily
> :>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
>
> The same with x-rated movies.
You have a wonderfully dirty mind.
Jonathan J. Baker
>In <9kpde8$ihj$1...@panix3.panix.com> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>>I'd say a lot of it is economic. Until the modern period, Jews
>>never were secure enough in any location to have the leisure and
>>the money to endow artists. Second, there is the near-universal
>>understanding of the graven-image prohibition to prohibit various
>>kinds of portraiture, and modesty prohibitions that make it difficult
>>to train by drawin the human form, which is necessary to the proper
>>development of an artist. So our artists are all outcasts, secularists,
>>etc., who are not supported by a religious moneyed class. Or, they're
>>cartoonists, like Michoel Muchnik in his early years (who's a nice
>>guy, I just ran into him in the local pizza shop).
>Yeah, I think that's a good point. AFAIK there isn't a heck of a lot of
>aesthetics among the corresponding non-Jewish peasants of Poland, Russia,
>etc., perhaps for similar reasons. That explains some of it, but we've
>always had a lot of "city folk," and city folk tend to have more access to
>art, I think. So it doesn't explain it entirely.
>>The flowering of Christian art until the modern period was supported
>>by the Church, by a religious moneyed class, who wanted religious
>>scenes as well as secular scenes.
>True. But we've always had a religious moneyed class, too.
And they too have commissioned decorative, even figurative art.
But as the "people of the book", much of that art was portable,
rather than architectural. See, e.g, the Rothschild Miscellany,
a 14th-century manuscript which includes a haggadah, laws of pesach,
siddur, ethical works, and endless lovely illuminations and miniature
paintings. Or the many many decorative haggadot.
Most of this is medieval. But from the Renaissance onward, we haven't
really had a big urban leisure class in the real art centers: Italy,
Spain, Netherlands, France, etc. Most Jewish culture was in the
East, where there is some lovely Persian art, or in North Africa,
where the Muslims were more anti-figurative like the Arabs, or in
Eastern Europe, where they were always an oppressed underclass, with
heavy taxation and uncertain economic future.
>>>Aesthetics are important. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by
>>>ugliness all the time. And O environments are often particularly ugly.
>>Only because you find Orthodoxy ugly. See some of the synagogues
>>in Italy, or in New York - great massive things put up in the 19th
>>century or earlier. There may not be a lot of davka Jewish styles,
>>although I wonder to what extent Barnett Newman was trying to go
>>there with his kabbalah-inspired paintings and sculptures in the
>>1960s.
>That's a harsh thing to say -- I certainly don't find Orthodoxy ugly as
>such. Actually, I tend to prefer the O model of a shul, rather than some
>church-like R temple. I'm not talking about "grandeur," necessarily, which
>was the key point of much Christian art. But there's plenty of room in the
>little things for aesthetics, too -- you don't need a giant altarpiece or
>huge paintings of saints to achieve beauty.
Well, that's what you're saying, effectively. Orthodoxy was the dominant,
if not the only form of Judaism until the mid-19th century. Only Christians
and Muslims in your book can produce great art, music, architecture, while
the contemporary Jews, i.e. the Orthodox, can only produce tacky crap.
>>>Why is this? Has it always been this way? Can it, and should it, be
>>>changed?
>>I think you're missing a lot. There is plenty of the aesthetic in
>>Judaism, but in forms that are more amenable to being harnessed to
>>religion, such as in music or in architecture. Art is not just pictures
>>and statues.
>Religious music? Among the Chassidim, yes. But overall? I'm not so sure.
>And art certainly is more than pictures and statues, I agree.
You're missing a lot. You should hear a Spanish-style haftarah sometime;
it's the most beautiful leining I've ever heard. And much of the current
Chassidic music is crap. Chassidic pop is mostly garbage. Some of the
old niggunim, though, are beautiful. Klezmer can be great; listen to some
of the old masters, like Dave Tarras or Naftule Brandwein. Again, the
Spanish music, sung by a choir, or some of the German prayers, led by a
choir, is grand and beautiful. And the medieval poetry, some of which we
still say on Yom Kippur, is terrific.
Just because you haven't been exposed to the grand and beautiful in Jewish
art doesn't mean that all of it is garbage. But since you seem to think
that anything Jewish is garbage ab initio, hence my claim that you are an
anti-O bigot.
>>How much Muslim figurative art is there? They have even more
>>restrictive rules on the figurative in art than we do. Yet they
>>put up some lovely buildings, wall-decorations, rugs, etc. E.g.,
>>the Mosque of Omar (which is itself a strange building, asymmetric,
>>etc.), the Muhammad Ali Mosque, the Hagia Sophia (which was originally
>>Byzantine, I think)...
>Exactly and precisely my point. I even used the Muslims as an example --
>they're art is lovely, and often delicate, soothing, decidedly different
>from the Catholic "look how huge and impressive our church is, our god
>must be huge and impressive too, huh?" school.
>I have the impression that some Sephardim are in touch with this type of
>aesthetic.
Conservatives too, as well as other Ashkenazim. Many C synagogues are
claimed to have been built oversized because of the "edifice complex".
And the largest synagogue in the world is the Reform Temple Emanuel in
New York.
You know, the Bet haMikdash was pretty small. The whole heichal was
about as big as my shul, around 3000 sq ft. But you should see the
Amsterdam Spanish/Portuguese Synagogue, which I think is still standing.
There are pictures on the Web somewhere.
--
Jonathan Baker | D"T: 10ths are serious, 15ths are happy: 10 Tvt, 9
jjb...@panix.com | Av, Y"K; but all Y"T's are 15ths; 15 Shvt; 15 Av.
Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Jonathan J. Baker
>In < jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) writes:
>>...and when given the chance, we built some pretty impressive
>>synagogues in Muslim lands, closely following the Muslim models.
>>Take Toledo, for instance.
>I hope to visit Spain some day and check them out - I'd like to see them,
>I've heard good things.
>>Here we have a problem. The pinnacle of Christian architecture
>>-- the gothic cathedral --- is an unsuitable model for a synagogue.
>>It is very much image-oriented. The same can be said for Baroque
>>religious architecture, from any location . But even in Christian
>>lands we have build some nice synagogues -- a couple of Venetian
>>ones come to mind.
>I agree - the point I'm trying to make here, probably poorly, is how come
>we don't have a native, traditional Jewish aesthetic? Sure, we've built
>Islamic-style buildings, or maybe adapted some Christian models. But
>where's ours? Where's the native aesthetic?
Actually, one can do Gothic without the pictures. The Gothic idea
is to transfer the load-bearing function of the walls to thin piers,
allowing large non-bearing panels to be replaced by windows, which
lets in a lot of light.
Princeton's chapel was built in 1928 by Ralph Adams Cram, the great
advocate of Gothic revival. Princeton was Presbyterian, which is
pretty much non-image-oriented. My uncle taught there for a semester
in 1956, and his reaction to it was "a gothic church without the statues."
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Joel N. Shurkin" <shu...@earthlink.net>
>Subject:Re: Jewish Aesthetics (or lack thereof)
>Date: 8 Aug 2001 22:01:11 GMT
>Message-ID:<B7972F50.B605%shu...@earthlink.net>
>On 8/8/01 9:03 AM, in article 9krdbd$6el$1...@condor.nj.org,
>"BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL" <BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote:
>
>> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:49573
>>
>>> From: "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net>
>>> Subject:Re: Jewish Aesthetics (or lack thereof)
>>> Date: 8 Aug 2001 12:39:48 GMT
>>> Message-ID:<8H8c7.38436$gj1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>> "Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
>>> news:9kr0ei$3t3$9...@readme.uio.no...
>>>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT,
>>>> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Polished black
>>>>> leather can be very beautiful when used by a skilled craftsman.
>>>>
>>>> Now there's a sentence which looks interesting when taken out of
>>>> context :-)
>>>
>>> Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
>>> knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with all
>>> the men wrapped in black leather straps.
>>
>>
>> This reminds me of our then 3 year old who when visiting at the local zoo
>> saw a zebra and asked, "IS HE WEARING A TALLIS??" :-)
>>
>>
>> Josh
>
>
>Was he Jewish?
Only Charlie the Tuna was Jewish :-)
Josh
>
>j
Steven Goldfarb
>Anyway, going back to Jewish stuff, a google search for wooden synagogues
>gave me a couple of cool pages:
>http://www.wzo.org.il/juice/art/3/index.htm (check this out!)
>http://www.igc.org/ddickerson/polish-synagogues.html
Wow! Great stuff. Let me point out, for those who didn't get what I was
saying before, that the Ark curtain illustrated is absolutely beautiful,
and yes, it's velvet with gold and silver embroidery of lions, crowns, and
columns. It's not the subject or the style I'm talking about -- it's the
fact that this ark curtain is art. It's wonderful. The stuff you typically
see today is schlock. It's a cheap knock-off of something beautiful.
If you can't tell the difference -- go and study. It's worth it.
--sg
>This and other stuff at
>http://www.google.com/search?q=wooden+synagogue
>Jordi
>------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
> http://MailAndNews.com
> Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
> POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
>------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Goldfarb
>As I have made reference to in the past, there are many absolutely beautiful and
>highly moving Chassidic nigunim. I suggest to Mr. Goldfard that he start with
>some Modzitzer and Skulener recordings. For cantorial, Yossele Rosenblatt is a
>must and he was one of the few truly observant famous chazzonim of his time.
It's "Goldfarb." And I stipulated that Chassidic nigunim are, as you say,
absolutely beautiful and highly moving.
>The whole Torah lifestyle is completely different. When people's daily lives are
>dedicated to and occupied with a higher purpose and calling, aesthetic concerns
>become much less important. Another thing is that with many children, the type
>of aesthetic and artistic standards that S.G. is talking about are impractical.
>Contrast those people with few, if any, children who are concerned with keeping
>their 'high-class' art collections and decor` in perfect condition, with those
>who have many children running around. It is the latter who are overwhelmingly
>more truly happy.
Impractical? IMPRACTICAL? Your whole way of life is impractical -- it's
the epitome of impracticality. If your goal is practicality, I suggest you
chuck the whole O thing.
This is fun - the shoe's on the other foot here. You have absolutely no
idea what I'm talking about -- no background in this whatsoever. Take some
of your own medicine here -- take my word for it, you don't know what
you're talking about. Go and study.
>Appearance is important though, and the Torah requires that we look presentable
>but this means being clean, neat and well-groomed, not being concerned with
>aesthetics on the level that S.G. is referring to.
What is your source? Please be specific. Others here have agreed that God
is quite specific -- he doesn't say "be neat and tidy, " he specifies that
he wants his temple, for example, to be beautiful.
>There is a specific mitzvah to beautify mitzvos: such as buying the finest
>tefillin and mezzuzos one can afford, the choicest arba minim (lulav, esrog,
>hadassim and aravos), building beautiful shuls, etc.
Ah! I see. So when you're not doing mitzvahs, you don't have to worry
about beauty. But wait -- isn't nearly everything a Jew does supposed to
be done "God's way," i.e., according to God's commandments, or in other
words, as a mitzvah? So then shouldn't every element of a Jew's life be
beautified?
>Yes it is but not necessarily what you would consider ugliness and what you are
>referring-to. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by anything that is not
>in accordance with the Torah. In fact, is it is extremely detrimental and
>dangerous to the soul. Being surrounded by what you (and at least in many
>cases, likely I as well) would consider 'tacky' decor is not bad for the soul at
>all.
So you say. God feels differently -- he said so.
--sg
Steven Goldfarb
>Just because you haven't been exposed to the grand and beautiful in Jewish
>art doesn't mean that all of it is garbage. But since you seem to think
>that anything Jewish is garbage ab initio, hence my claim that you are an
>anti-O bigot.
I'm an anti-O bigot? Nice. Go to hell, Baker. Bye.
Jess Olson
Well, I'm sure you've sait in a knock of of one of Breuer's chairs.
They are ubiquitous.
I didn't know Gehry was Jewish either. But those buildings...yuck! (Note
personal opinion, subtly expressed).
Yishai
>
>j
Micha Berger
:> As for lulav... Freud would have a lot to say about the lulav and esrog.
:> Interestingly, the symbology is used as /thanks/ for a fertile season, not
:> as a request for one. A non-magical twist to the theme in that it's not
:> a paganesque attempt to make something occur by imitating it.
: What the (&*Y)&*^(*(& does any of this have to do with *our* performance of the
: ***mitzvah*** of the arba minim as commanded by ****G-d*** in his holy
: ***Torah***??
What, you think that Hashem is incapable of using sexual imagery, that only
Shelomo haMelech is up to the task? Or do you think HKBH didn't know
how the human subconscious reacts to certain images?
The Rambam notes WRT korbanos that sometimes halachah utilizes a human
drive that was also picked up by the pagans. My point here was to contrast
the two, to show that even though sexual imagery is used, it's not used
the in the same way. One reduces religion to serve the mammalian urge,
the other utilizes our drives in service of G-d. As the gemara says about
the second line (3rd if you count "baruch sheim..."), "'bechol levavecha'
-- beshnei yitzrecha". ("'With all your heart' -- with both of your
inclinations.")
I realize that this distinction may seem arbitrary, I'll therefore
elaborate on my earlier post. Esrog and lulav is at the end of the
farming season; it's a thanksgiving process. We enhance our sense of
thanks to the A-lmighty by involving more of the person's emotional
spectrum. Notice that we abstract /away/ from sexuality to lend its
emotional power to something else.
Asheirah worship took the desire to have a good crop, turned it into
a "technology" about how to force their goddess to do what they want,
and that in turn became about sex. The exact opposite direction,
abstracting /into/ sexuality.
: There is no signifiance to the phallic symbolism...
FWIW, I notice you caught the lulav reference, but didn't pick up on the
esrog. That's part of it too.
: What would your rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, have said in reply to a post like
: this?
Interesting that you assume you would know better than I. I think he would
have been shocked that I said it in public. But then, many of the rated R
discussions here I only participate in because I don't think people would
otherwise learn it.
I do not share your certainty that R' Dovid would not agree with its
truth.
I also wonder how Sepharadim would ract to this notion. It would be
an interesting test of R' Angel's theory.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Susan Cohen
"Joel N. Shurkin" wrote:
IOW, they're all anonymous.
(And someone else quite kindly listed the Jewish architects for you)
Susan
>
>
> j
Susan Cohen
"Elizabeth M. Levin" wrote:
> Steven Goldfarb (s...@panix.com) wrote:
> : In <jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com> Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> writes:
>
> : >Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
>
> : Actually, of all the traditional Jewish ritual objects, I think tefillin
> : are probably the most aesthetically pleasing.
>
> Ah. Modern aesthetic. Clean lines, that kind of thing. I think the problem
> is that you're looking for a fashionable aesthetic. Right now the
> Mediterranean is in, which would explain why Sephardim escape the
> stricture. So are the plain box styles, which tefillin fit. However the
> heavily decorated styles that constitute the traditional aesthetic are not
> currently fashionable.
>
> Me, I kinda like those, too- heavy silver seder plates, papercut
> mizrachim, ornate mezzuzot, embroidered velvet talit bags, large brass
> hannukiot that have tons of detail, etc.
Oh, yes - I love the *traditional* hannukiot - knobbly brass branches
and, of course, a lion - or even two lions on either side of the two tablets.
But there's an Art Deco synagague in DC that I also like.
Susan
>
>
> --
> Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
> any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
> is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
> US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Binyamin Dissen
:>"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:36v2ntkd0b582g0g7...@4ax.com...
:>> On 8 Aug 2001 17:34:35 GMT jord...@my-deja.com (Jordi Sod) wrote:
:>> :>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
:>news:<lrs1nt820t4tahb6o...@4ax.com>...
:>> :>> On 8 Aug 2001 01:28:46 GMT "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>> If one takes out time from learning or family merely to get an object
:>of
:>> :>> beauty?
:>Who said anything about taking time from learning or from family? Few of us
:>spend every waking hour in study, and the aquisition of a thing of beauty
:>might well be a family activity. Would you be more approving if one took the
:>time out from posting to the internet instead? :-)
It is not a matter of me approving or not.
Is the pursuit of beauty a useful task, compared with whatever else one can
do.
:>> :>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
:>> As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
:>> :> Not necessarily
:>> :>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
:>> The same with x-rated movies.
:>Are you attempting to equate the two, or suggesting that both of them should
:>be forbidden?
Merely pointing out that pursuit of arbitrary knowledge is not necessarily a
good thing.
:> If Jordi had written that there are beautiful flowers in
:>nature, would you have responded by pointing to the existence of dung piles?
There already were posts like that.
:>What's the point?
As above.
N. Samuel R.
news:9krm1s$eeu$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> As evidenced by the holidays, this being attuned to nature was an important
> element that we lost. Some of it can be recovered by praying at the earliest
> possible time; it makes you much more aware of the change in days that
> comes with the seasons.
There are many other ways that that can happen, such as:
- Just being awake early enough to notice the dif. in darkness/light at the same
time during dif. seasons
- Observing Shabbos and the latest time for mincha/earliest time for maariv
cause people to be very aware of the differences in the time the sun sets
between seasons
N. Samuel R.
news:9ksl2d$fd0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In <9ks3u8$672jk$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de> "N. Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>
> >As I have made reference to in the past, there are many absolutely beautiful
and
> >highly moving Chassidic nigunim. I suggest to Mr. Goldfard that he start with
> >some Modzitzer and Skulener recordings. For cantorial, Yossele Rosenblatt is
a
> >must and he was one of the few truly observant famous chazzonim of his time.
>
> It's "Goldfarb."
I know, the above was a typo. I'm sorry.
>And I stipulated that Chassidic nigunim are, as you say,
> absolutely beautiful and highly moving.
>
> >The whole Torah lifestyle is completely different. When people's daily lives
are
> >dedicated to and occupied with a higher purpose and calling, aesthetic
concerns
> >become much less important. Another thing is that with many children, the
type
> >of aesthetic and artistic standards that S.G. is talking about are
impractical.
> >Contrast those people with few, if any, children who are concerned with
keeping
> >their 'high-class' art collections and decor` in perfect condition, with
those
> >who have many children running around. It is the latter who are
overwhelmingly
> >more truly happy.
>
> Impractical? IMPRACTICAL? Your whole way of life is impractical -- it's
> the epitome of impracticality. If your goal is practicality, I suggest you
> chuck the whole O thing.
Irrelevant. You completely miss the point. The issue is not which is the most
practical lifestyle; my point was the level of aesthetic concern that you are
advocating is impractical when one has many children. It is NOT about how
practical having many children or any other aspect of the Orthodox lifestyle is.
>
> This is fun - the shoe's on the other foot here. You have absolutely no
> idea what I'm talking about -- no background in this whatsoever. Take some
> of your own medicine here -- take my word for it, you don't know what
> you're talking about. Go and study.
My aunt had an apartment that was featured in Architectural Digest and I've
enjoyed looking through that magazine many times in the past. I've been to quite
a few art muesuems. I don't have to a degree in 'art appreciation' to know that
what you are describing is often impractical with many children.
> >Appearance is important though, and the Torah requires that we look
presentable
> >but this means being clean, neat and well-groomed, not being concerned with
> >aesthetics on the level that S.G. is referring to.
>
> What is your source? Please be specific. Others here have agreed that God
> is quite specific -- he doesn't say "be neat and tidy, " he specifies that
> he wants his temple, for example, to be beautiful.
>
> >There is a specific mitzvah to beautify mitzvos: such as buying the finest
> >tefillin and mezzuzos one can afford, the choicest arba minim (lulav, esrog,
> >hadassim and aravos), building beautiful shuls, etc.
>
> Ah! I see. So when you're not doing mitzvahs, you don't have to worry
> about beauty. But wait -- isn't nearly everything a Jew does supposed to
> be done "God's way," i.e., according to God's commandments, or in other
> words, as a mitzvah? So then shouldn't every element of a Jew's life be
> beautified?
There is a difference between intrinsic objects and actions of a mitzvah, such
as lulav, tefillin, synagogues, davening, etc. and intrinisically non-holy
objects and actions that are elevated when done with the intent to serve G-d.
The specific mitzvah of 'hidur mitzvah', beautifying the object of a mitzvah,
only applies to *intrinsic* objects of a mitzvah. By your logic it would be a
mitzvah to build a beautiful, luxurious house if you will perform mitzvos and
live in according to the Torah in the house. Not only is this not a mitzvah but
excessive indulgence in material luxury is discouraged. Again, that is not to
say that there is a mitzvah to live in a shabby house or even that one shouldn't
try to have a nice, tidy, clean home but we are talking about levels and
priorities here; the level of aesthetic concern that you are advocating goes
beyond what is required or even desirable from a Torah perspective.
>
> >Yes it is but not necessarily what you would consider ugliness and what you
are
> >referring-to. It is bad for the soul to be surrounded by anything that is
not
> >in accordance with the Torah. In fact, is it is extremely detrimental and
> >dangerous to the soul. Being surrounded by what you (and at least in many
> >cases, likely I as well) would consider 'tacky' decor is not bad for the soul
at
> >all.
>
> So you say. God feels differently -- he said so.
Nowhere did G-d say that being surrounded by 'tacky' decor is bad for the soul.
Ben Dreyfus
: Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
: knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with all
: the men wrapped in black leather straps.
Read the poem "Tefillin" by Yona Wallach.
Actually, don't, because if you do, you'll wish you hadn't.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus
dre...@post.harvard.edu
N. Samuel R.
> On 8 Aug 2001 18:43:21 GMT, N. Samuel R. <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No I did NOT!!!!!! I was ****QUOTING***** you . I will not tolerate having text
misattributed [1] to me in this way, especially when it says something I so
vehemently object to.
MICHA BERGER Wrote:
> :> As for lulav... Freud would have a lot to say about the lulav and esrog.
> :> Interestingly, the symbology is used as /thanks/ for a fertile season, not
> :> as a request for one. A non-magical twist to the theme in that it's not
> :> a paganesque attempt to make something occur by imitating it.
To Which N.R. Replied:
> : What the (&*Y)&*^(*(& does any of this have to do with *our* performance of
the
> : ***mitzvah*** of the arba minim as commanded by ****G-d*** in his holy
> : ***Torah***??
>
> What, you think that Hashem is incapable of using sexual imagery,
What is your basis for saying that He did so here? Do any of the commentators
say this? You asserted that this was the case without citing any source
whatsoever.
> : What would your rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, have said in reply to a post like
> : this?
>
> Interesting that you assume you would know better than I.
Interesting that you construe my sentence above in this way.
>I think he would
> have been shocked that I said it in public. But then, many of the rated R
> discussions here I only participate in because I don't think people would
> otherwise learn it.
That's really a separate issue. I was asking what you think he would have
thought about the interpretation that you asserted itself.
>
> I do not share your certainty that R' Dovid would not agree with its
> truth.
I have no such certainity but merely suspected that he wouldn't and from what
you have just said, it doesn't really sound like you necessarily disagree. You
merely said that you aren't certain that he wouldn't. You said nothing to imply
that it's likely that he actually would.
Notes:
[1] You've cited the additional level of indentation but that is too subtle.
Just yesterday, someone misattributed something *I* said to you because of this.
As I pointed-out before I am not the only one
who objects to this: Several people agreed with me when I posted about this
several weeks ago and I found more than one post by Jay Lapidus in the archives
where he complains about the *exact* type of misattribution that you have done
here.
Steven Goldfarb
>My aunt had an apartment that was featured in Architectural Digest and I've
>enjoyed looking through that magazine many times in the past. I've been to quite
>a few art muesuems. I don't have to a degree in 'art appreciation' to know that
>what you are describing is often impractical with many children.
To the contrary. You still don't get what I'm saying.
Do you have a Chanukah menorah? I'm sure you do. How did you buy it? Go
into the store and grab the first one you saw? Was it a gift? Well, here's
an opportunity to share some aesthetic appreciation in a truly Jewish way
with your children. Make finding the most beautiful menorah a task in and
of itself. With your childen. Get pictures of historical menorahs --- talk
about them. Discuss what makes some appealing to you, and others not.
Take a look at the site Jordi posted -- look at some old Torah Ark
curtains. Talk about them with your children. Then next time you're in
shul waiting for something or other with your son, say, take him up to the
curtain and talk about it -- what makes it nice, where it may be lacking.
Etc.
>The specific mitzvah of 'hidur mitzvah', beautifying the object of a mitzvah,
>only applies to *intrinsic* objects of a mitzvah. By your logic it would be a
>mitzvah to build a beautiful, luxurious house if you will perform mitzvos and
>live in according to the Torah in the house. Not only is this not a mitzvah but
>excessive indulgence in material luxury is discouraged. Again, that is not to
>say that there is a mitzvah to live in a shabby house or even that one shouldn't
>try to have a nice, tidy, clean home but we are talking about levels and
>priorities here; the level of aesthetic concern that you are advocating goes
>beyond what is required or even desirable from a Torah perspective.
I don't think so. But hey, consult your local O art critic :-) As I say,
I'm not necessarily talking about buying expensive art, or building a
house featured in Architectural Digest.
>>
>Nowhere did G-d say that being surrounded by 'tacky' decor is bad for the soul.
He said the converse -- that being surrounded by beauty is good for the
soul. I was going with the theory that if something isn't good for your
soul, then it's bad for it.
BTW, did you see the ivory pomegranite on the site Jordi posted? 8th
Century BCE -- they think it might actually be from the original temple.
It's very cool.
.jackie cappiello
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> "Elizabeth M. Levin" wrote:
>
> > Steven Goldfarb (s...@panix.com) wrote:
> > : In <jem0ntoceh24fnft5...@4ax.com> Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> writes:
> >
> > : >Then why did He ask for black leather boxes for Teffilin?
> >
> > : Actually, of all the traditional Jewish ritual objects, I think tefillin
> > : are probably the most aesthetically pleasing.
> >
> > Ah. Modern aesthetic. Clean lines, that kind of thing. I think the problem
> > is that you're looking for a fashionable aesthetic. Right now the
> > Mediterranean is in, which would explain why Sephardim escape the
> > stricture. So are the plain box styles, which tefillin fit. However the
> > heavily decorated styles that constitute the traditional aesthetic are not
> > currently fashionable.
> >
> > Me, I kinda like those, too- heavy silver seder plates, papercut
> > mizrachim, ornate mezzuzot, embroidered velvet talit bags, large brass
> > hannukiot that have tons of detail, etc.
>
> Oh, yes - I love the *traditional* hannukiot - knobbly brass branches
> and, of course, a lion - or even two lions on either side of the two tablets.
> But there's an Art Deco synagague in DC that I also like.
>
> Susan
And do you enjoy the polishing of them as well? The simple, unadorned
brass or silver menorah, kiddush cup, etc, are a lot easier to keep
gleaming in my home.
.jackie cappiello
"N. Samuel R." wrote:
>
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:9krm1s$eeu$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> > As evidenced by the holidays, this being attuned to nature was an important
> > element that we lost. Some of it can be recovered by praying at the earliest
> > possible time; it makes you much more aware of the change in days that
> > comes with the seasons.
>
> There are many other ways that that can happen, such as:
>
> - Just being awake early enough to notice the dif. in darkness/light at the same
> time during dif. seasons
>
> - Observing Shabbos and the latest time for mincha/earliest time for maariv
> cause people to be very aware of the differences in the time the sun sets
> between seasons
One of my fondest memories was being at a retreat near Parry Sound,
Ontario, and watching a sunrise with another would-be artist. We sat
and watched the wondrous changes of the light as the sun tinted the
clouds different colours (sunrises are much more satisfying to watch
than sunsets, I believe) and then we both commented on how difficult it
was to duplicate with paint the colours and changes we were viewing.
G-d is truly the greatest of artists.
.jackie cappiello
Maybe we are looking too much at the past. There are artists today and
in recent years who are producing some great art, without a religious
context. I saw some beautiful paintings in Israel that I would love to
own.
Yisroel Markov
> On 8 Aug 2001 18:43:21 GMT, N. Samuel R. <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> As for lulav... Freud would have a lot to say about the lulav and esrog.
> :> Interestingly, the symbology is used as /thanks/ for a fertile season, not
> :> as a request for one. A non-magical twist to the theme in that it's not
> :> a paganesque attempt to make something occur by imitating it.
>
> : What the (&*Y)&*^(*(& does any of this have to do with *our* performance of the
> : ***mitzvah*** of the arba minim as commanded by ****G-d*** in his holy
> : ***Torah***??
>
> What, you think that Hashem is incapable of using sexual imagery, that only
> Shelomo haMelech is up to the task? Or do you think HKBH didn't know
> how the human subconscious reacts to certain images?
[grin]
I've thought of that, too, but I prefer a slightly different
symbolism: the lulav resembles a sceptre, and etrog, the orb. After
Rosh HaShana, when we have again crowned HaShem King, He lends us some
of His splendor. This [temporary] royal status of Jews may be one of
the reasons we are commanded to bring sacrifices for the 70 nations
during Sukkot.
Of course, the sceptre itself may very well be a phallic image and
symbolize a ruler's dominion. The orb, OTOH ("derzhava", or "country",
in Russian), represents the land ruled, and its round shape may
represent femininity - earth is feminine. The whole idea of a king
having both hands busy with ornamental objects is probably designed to
impress court visitors with the fact that he doesn't need a free hand
for a sword. Perhaps that's why we say the bracha on lulav and etrog
with lulav in the right hand and etrog in the left, and bring them
together only for waving, when they flip to symbolizing different
kinds of Jews, and for hoshaanot? (Do we have different minhagim for
that?)
Do we find orbs anywhere in Jewish literature? (We see a golden
sceptre (sharvit ha-zahav) in Esther, of course.)
[snip]
(.sig chosen for appropriateness :-)
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We say kiddush over wine, perform kiddushin with women, and call the
Song of Songs 'Kodesh Kodashim of the Torah'. So you see -- the three
holiest things in Judaism are wine, women, and song!" -- R. Aryeh
Kaplan Z"L
meirm...@erols.com
R." <n_...@hotmail.com> posted:
>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>news:9krm1s$eeu$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> As evidenced by the holidays, this being attuned to nature was an important
>> element that we lost. Some of it can be recovered by praying at the earliest
>> possible time; it makes you much more aware of the change in days that
>> comes with the seasons.
>
>There are many other ways that that can happen, such as:
>
>- Just being awake early enough to notice the dif. in darkness/light at the same
>time during dif. seasons
I'm awake late enough! But I agree that dawn is more impressive.
>- Observing Shabbos and the latest time for mincha/earliest time for maariv
>cause people to be very aware of the differences in the time the sun sets
>between seasons
Of course wouldn't observing the earliest time for mincha and the
latest time for maariv cause people to be just as aware of the sunset
differences? :)
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Jordi Sod
> Is the pursuit of beauty a useful task, compared with whatever else one can
> do.
Within reasonable bounds, absolutely. Speaking for myself,
I couldn't live a happy life without allotting some time
for aesthetic enjoyment.
>
> :>> :>Knowledge of works of beauty is still knowledge.
>
> :>> As is knowledge of x-rated movies.
>
> :>> :> Not necessarily
> :>> :>Torah, but knowledge nonetheless.
>
> :>> The same with x-rated movies.
>
> :>Are you attempting to equate the two, or suggesting that both of them should
> :>be forbidden?
>
> Merely pointing out that pursuit of arbitrary knowledge is not necessarily a
> good thing.
You could have put it far more tastefully. Aesthetic knowledge is _not_
arbitrary. Beauty is one of the big three values of most philosophies:
the good, the true, and the beautiful. Anticipating
you question: yes, this also applies to Judaism. Otherwise,
instead of writing
"[My beloved's] hands are as rods of gold set with beryl;
his body is as polished ivory overlaid with sapphires. "
our poets would have written
"my beloved's hands have a firm grip. His body is healthy
and strong. This guy can do a fine job running after sheep."
Jordi
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty, --that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. " -- Keats
Dan Kimmel
news:9ktita$vvu$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : Indeed. The ritual director at my shul has mused about what someone who
> : knew nothing about Jewish practice would make of our morning minyan with
all
> : the men wrapped in black leather straps.
>
> Read the poem "Tefillin" by Yona Wallach.
>
> Actually, don't, because if you do, you'll wish you hadn't.
Whether I do or don't, where does one find it?
Elizabeth M. Levin
: "Elizabeth M. Levin" wrote:
: > Ah. Modern aesthetic. Clean lines, that kind of thing. I think the problem
: > is that you're looking for a fashionable aesthetic. Right now the
: > Mediterranean is in, which would explain why Sephardim escape the
: > stricture. So are the plain box styles, which tefillin fit. However the
: > heavily decorated styles that constitute the traditional aesthetic are not
: > currently fashionable.
: >
: > Me, I kinda like those, too- heavy silver seder plates, papercut
: > mizrachim, ornate mezzuzot, embroidered velvet talit bags, large brass
: > hannukiot that have tons of detail, etc.
: Oh, yes - I love the *traditional* hannukiot - knobbly brass branches
: and, of course, a lion - or even two lions on either side of the two tablets.
: But there's an Art Deco synagague in DC that I also like.
Frankly, I'm an Art Nouveau kinda person. I like the pre-Raphaelites. I
like Tiffany lamps. I like those sort of wierd sideboards that look like
they somehow grew that way. I like small, cluttered rooms with lots of
detail. I like the color fairy books. I like the arts and crafts style
tables that they made out of heavy oak, too. I married a guy into
gas-light science fiction. Go figure.
I also like stylized nature stuff in general. If I'm going to get a
paisley, it'll be the kind that looks like leaves, that kind of thing.
Except for the orange carpeting and uphostery (I would, of course, put in
various shades of green) I kind of like the decoration of the local
synagogue- it has these wierd tree of life sculptures. I think that Reform
place out on Conn. Ave in Rockville is gorgeous- I wouldn't go there for
services, but it is pretty, at least on the inside.
Art Deco is kinda cool, too- e-mail me which one you mean. I'd love to see
it.
Elizabeth Levin
Elizabeth M. Levin
: Susan Cohen wrote:
: >
: > "Elizabeth M. Levin" wrote:
: > > Me, I kinda like those, too- heavy silver seder plates, papercut
: > > mizrachim, ornate mezzuzot, embroidered velvet talit bags, large brass
: > > hannukiot that have tons of detail, etc.
: >
: > Oh, yes - I love the *traditional* hannukiot - knobbly brass branches
: > and, of course, a lion - or even two lions on either side of the two tablets.
: > But there's an Art Deco synagague in DC that I also like.
: >
: > Susan
: And do you enjoy the polishing of them as well? The simple, unadorned
: brass or silver menorah, kiddush cup, etc, are a lot easier to keep
: gleaming in my home.
We store the kiddush cup in such a way as to retard the oxidation process,
and the brass looks better with the patina, IMHO. (The silver kiddush cup
actually doesn't dull much, and it's got a sort of glow from age and being
kept in such a way that it doesn't have to be constantly polished.)
Elizabeth M. Levin
: >My aunt had an apartment that was featured in Architectural Digest and I've
: >enjoyed looking through that magazine many times in the past. I've been to quite
: >a few art muesuems. I don't have to a degree in 'art appreciation' to know that
: >what you are describing is often impractical with many children.
: To the contrary. You still don't get what I'm saying.
: Do you have a Chanukah menorah? I'm sure you do. How did you buy it?
I have several. Some were gifts. One I bought because it was in a Catholic
resale shop, and I felt it should be "rescued". One I made. (Actually, I
really like the one I rescued. It's impressively large and gaudy. I still
wonder how it got there.)
> Go
: into the store and grab the first one you saw? Was it a gift? Well, here's
: an opportunity to share some aesthetic appreciation in a truly Jewish way
: with your children. Make finding the most beautiful menorah a task in and
: of itself. With your childen. Get pictures of historical menorahs --- talk
: about them. Discuss what makes some appealing to you, and others not.
Why is your example so consumerist? Why not look at historical pictures of
say, challah covers, and have the kids help _make_ one? Families with
children often don't have the kind of money that some menorahs can cost. I
know I'm not willing to pay hundreds for an item I use once a year.
: Take a look at the site Jordi posted -- look at some old Torah Ark
: curtains. Talk about them with your children.
If I had a non-text based browser, I'd consider it.
> Then next time you're in
: shul waiting for something or other with your son, say, take him up to the
: curtain and talk about it -- what makes it nice, where it may be lacking.
: Etc.
Ugh! You would do this? Why not walk into someone's living room, and begin
criticizing it to your child? At a museum, I could see this. At shul? No.
That's not why you're at shul. If you don't like the ark curtains in your
shul, why don't you work at raising the money for "better" ones? Or make
better ones and donate them?
Steven Goldfarb
>Why is your example so consumerist? Why not look at historical pictures of
>say, challah covers, and have the kids help _make_ one? Families with
>children often don't have the kind of money that some menorahs can cost. I
>know I'm not willing to pay hundreds for an item I use once a year.
Sure - that's good too. Even better. I was just trying to pick an example
of something you might do anyway, and how you could turn that into an
aesthetic experience.
>> Then next time you're in
>: shul waiting for something or other with your son, say, take him up to the
>: curtain and talk about it -- what makes it nice, where it may be lacking.
>: Etc.
>Ugh! You would do this? Why not walk into someone's living room, and begin
>criticizing it to your child? At a museum, I could see this. At shul? No.
>That's not why you're at shul. If you don't like the ark curtains in your
>shul, why don't you work at raising the money for "better" ones? Or make
>better ones and donate them?
Well, I would certainly be discreet about it :-) But I see your point. I
was once again just trying to point out how one could introduce aesthetic
appreciation into one's existing lifestyle. In any case, it's not
necessarily about using words like "good" or "bad," I meant just talking
about it with your kids, trying to train their eyes.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Just because you haven't been exposed to the grand and beautiful in Jewish
>>art doesn't mean that all of it is garbage. But since you seem to think
>>that anything Jewish is garbage ab initio, hence my claim that you are an
>>anti-O bigot.
>I'm an anti-O bigot? Nice. Go to hell, Baker. Bye.
Well, you could disprove it. But, since you won't, I'm left with the
evidence of your post, in which artistic expression by Orthodox Jews
was regarded by yourself as garbage, while artistic expression by non-
observant Jews or by Christians or Muslims in the same media (music,
architecture, decorative arts) are regarded as beautiful and inspiring.
What other conclusion can I draw?
--
Jonathan Baker | D"T: 10ths are serious, 15ths are happy: 10 Tvt, 9
jjb...@panix.com | Av, Y"K; but all Y"T's are 15ths; 15 Shvt; 15 Av.
Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Sheldon Glickler
>
> In <x.com> s...@panix.com (Steven Goldfarb) writes:
> >In <x.com> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>
> >>Just because you haven't been exposed to the grand and beautiful in Jewish
> >>art doesn't mean that all of it is garbage. But since you seem to think
> >>that anything Jewish is garbage ab initio, hence my claim that you are an
> >>anti-O bigot.
>
> >I'm an anti-O bigot? Nice. Go to hell, Baker. Bye.
>
> Well, you could disprove it. But, since you won't, I'm left with the
> evidence of your post, in which artistic expression by Orthodox Jews
> was regarded by yourself as garbage, while artistic expression by non-
> observant Jews or by Christians or Muslims in the same media (music,
> architecture, decorative arts) are regarded as beautiful and inspiring.
> What other conclusion can I draw?
First of all, he used "tacky" not "garbage". What conclusion can
you draw? How about simply that in his artistic taste (and that of
MANY others, BTW) the works of the Orthodox tend to be "tacky" and
not in the same league as the works of others? (Class A versus
Major league, to bring in a baseball analogy).
Why do have this innate need to demonize a person because of his
aesthetic evaluations? He has been very polite to all. He has
expressed a willingness to consider other viewpoints. Now because
he finds these art works "tacky", suddenly he is an anti-O bigot?
All I can say to that Jonathan is "why don't you step back and think
about it a little?".
Shelly
Elizabeth M. Levin
: >Why is your example so consumerist? Why not look at historical pictures of
: >say, challah covers, and have the kids help _make_ one? Families with
: >children often don't have the kind of money that some menorahs can cost. I
: >know I'm not willing to pay hundreds for an item I use once a year.
: Sure - that's good too. Even better. I was just trying to pick an example
: of something you might do anyway, and how you could turn that into an
: aesthetic experience.
Heck, for that, you don't even have to make a new challah cloth. Go to
your local farmer's market right now. See if you can find: zucchini,
yellow squash, green beans, new potatoes, roma tomatoes, beefsteak
tomatoes, sweet corn, and blackberries. Better yet is to grow them in your
back yard. Add bell peppers if you're not allergic.
Now, feel how warm they are from the sun. Bless God for creating fruit of
the earth. Pop a blackberry warm from the sun into your mouth. Feel the
nubbly texture as you bite down and the warm sweet juice in your mouth.
Smell the tomatoes. Take them home and get the kids to help make dinner.
Take a bowl and a trash bag out back and snap the greenbeans. Next, shuck
the corn. Start two pots of water. Put the corn in a steam basket, and
steam it. Put the potatoes in the other pot. when they're almost done, add
those green beans. Turn off the heat. Slice the beefsteak tomatoes, and
one of the romas. Put the romas aside to can in the evening. quickly
sautee the squash and the zucchini together.
Gather the family together. Set the table. Put out some bread and maybe a
fruity white from a good kosher winery. Say the blessings together.
Now, look at your dinner. Smell it. Taste it. Feel the different textures.
Listen for the <snap> of the beans. Taste the two kinds of tomato. Look at
the colors. Feel the crumbly bread. Talk to your family. Enjoy.
: >> Then next time you're in
: >: shul waiting for something or other with your son, say, take him up to the
: >: curtain and talk about it -- what makes it nice, where it may be lacking.
: >: Etc.
: >Ugh! You would do this? Why not walk into someone's living room, and begin
: >criticizing it to your child? At a museum, I could see this. At shul? No.
: >That's not why you're at shul. If you don't like the ark curtains in your
: >shul, why don't you work at raising the money for "better" ones? Or make
: >better ones and donate them?
: Well, I would certainly be discreet about it :-) But I see your point. I
: was once again just trying to point out how one could introduce aesthetic
: appreciation into one's existing lifestyle. In any case, it's not
: necessarily about using words like "good" or "bad," I meant just talking
: about it with your kids, trying to train their eyes.
"lacking" is about the same as "bad" when translated to kidspeak. Try
positive experiences at home, hmm? Actually, getting the kids to make
ritual items is a great way to get them to interact positively with
Judaism. (I'm not a parent. I'm a teacher.)
Joel N. Shurkin
Before Offenbach were the Halevi brothers who dominated the Paris Opera in
the middle of the 19th century. They were observant in their own way and
very active in the Paris Jewish community. None of their work is performed
these days (it wasn't very good), but they reached considerable prominence.
He says there is a clear prejudice against aesthetic pursuits among the
Orthodox for several reasons, one NR alluded to--they think it is a
distraction from important things. Also, there is the tradition, going back
to the Greek influence in which the Greek aesthetic was considered
antithetical to Jewish life and bordered on idolatry. Third, there is the
idea that the aesthetic is too associated with the physical world to the
detriment of the spiritual. It was basically only until Mendelssohn (the
grandfather) and the Enlightenment that Jews could pay attention to the
aesthetic and almost always, they were non-observant Jews.
Most of the musicians were (this is my opinion now) inter-married
(Bernstein) or homosexual (Copeland) or apostates (Mahler) or simply dropped
out of the Jewish world (Gershwin).
j
Joel N. Shurkin
On 8/8/01 9:27 PM, in article 9ksdpu$j42$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU, "Jess Olson"
<j...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
And I would point out you had to go look them up. I can name about a dozen
world-renown architects, only one of whom was Jewish.
j
Joel N. Shurkin
<fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Joel N. Shurkin" wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/01 11:52 PM, in article 3B70AF30...@his.com, "Susan Cohen"
>> <fla...@his.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Joel N. Shurkin" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Name more than one great Jewish architect. (Kahn is the other).
>>>>
>>>> j
>>>
>>> Name a Xtian stained glass artist.
>>> We all know a Jewish one.
>>> (AFAIK, they're all anonymous)
>>>
>>> Susan
>>
>> The guys who did all the cathedrals and churches in Europe.
>
> IOW, they're all anonymous.
> (And someone else quite kindly listed the Jewish architects for you)
>
> Susan
>
>
Yes, but he had to go look them up.
j
Joel N. Shurkin
Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, He should have.
J