Sketchbook: Dialectical Man
Word from: Shlomo
Bumped into a friend of mine today, who's working on a documentary on the Rav. "What's so great about the Rav?" I asked. "Ahhh, you need to see our documentary" he answered. Whatever, he's still ahistorical...
how's that for gossip, Mordy?
7 Comments:
At 12:54 PM, David said…
Shlomo, I like your work a lot-the picture is sharp, the lines above the Rav remind me (forgive me) of Keith Haring-of 'Crack is Wack' fame.
There was going to be a long diatribe here on how I feel YU turns Rabbi Soloveitchik into an iconic figure, but this isn't the right place for to talk about it.
At 4:16 PM, Shlomo said…
I hear the Haring connection--In highschool I had one of his paintings hanging on my wall. There's definitely some of that roiling around my brain.
Its funny that you say that this is not the place for "real talk about the Rav" because I was thinking of taking a much more critical slant in this piece, but then decided not to.
but i'd still like to hear what you have to say on the topic.
At 11:47 PM, David said…
Sorry for the delay-in short, I think that for various reasons, some good (his assocation with the YU), some bad (the need for a rebbe like figure within Modern Orthodoxy or perhaps a mascot) the Rav is overemphasized. He was not the only important Orthodox thinker of 20th century. He was a man reluctant to publicize his ideas, which are rather esoteric and abstract, which like writing should not be imitated without an understanding of the dialetic style in which they are written. And I can't stand how every time he is mentioned, all other rabbis feel the need to say revered or esteemed. After all, they are calling him the Rav and not Rabbi Soloveitchik. Shouldn't that beenough?
At 1:36 PM, Dena said…
Mascot?
I was surprised/disappointed to see that the portrait of the Rav that Shlomo brought us seemed so reverent to me, though not quite reminiscent of the work of another Wa. Heights hagiographic artist. Those piercing Rav-y eyes, the splitting Rav-y head. I don't like to see anything disrespectful, but I thought you could have pushed the line more... (Though I did recognize him this time!)
The problem with Ravianism (beyond what Druce pointed out) is that, Rav Soloveitchik is no longer with us. A tremendous reservoir of time and energy is spent on trying to figure out what R' Sol's position was on every last halakhic and ideological whatever. I think that's where the ahistoricism really comes in. Modern Orthodoxy is in a time warp. As if figuring out what R. Sol said in 1960 on anything is really going to solve the problems of the 2005 Jewish community. Maybe all that money and brain space would be better spent trying to fund the arts.
At 5:19 PM, David said…
As usual, Dena has gotten to the core of the argument about the Rav. As for arts-there is an important essay by Dr. Michael Wyschogrod, which describes the lack creativity in Orthodox communities. Will cite it directly when found.
Thanks again to Shlomo, for sparking this conversation with your artwork.
Wouldn't it fun to tease all the starched collars by writing a paper critiquing and re-reading the Rav's writing through post-modern gender, political, and political criticism?
At 6:23 PM, Dena said…
Thanks Dave.
I think that it's a great idea and if Tradition or even the Edah journal won't publish it maybe Mima should. Let's modernize Modern Orthodoxy. Historicize "the Rav"- eh Shlomo?
Now that I think about it I wrote a feminist critique of Halakhic Man when I was a Frosh in NYU entitled (what else) Halakhic Woman. It wasn't brilliant, but it pointed out the basics i.e. that for HM women are Seder Nashim and they can have no subjectivity because they are not required to learn Torah. You know, I should really tighten it up and submit it to JOFA and see what they say.
At 4:36 PM, yaacov said…
I thought David made a great point about it being important to understand the Rav's style of writing before quoting his ideas. He mentioned his use of dialectics. I'd add to that his typological approach to the inquiry into human nature, something the Rav inherited from Spranger, Dilthey, Baeck, and the Netziv.
See Dr. Shatz's Introduction to A Reader's Companion of Ish Ha-Halakhah.
I think that's the argument against the highlights Dena gave us from her Halakhic Woman although not necessarily against David's suggestion of "critiquing and re-reading."
Meaning: the masculinity of HM stems from the halakhic sources that the Rav uses as the source of his typologies, sources that first addressed the Jews of three thousand years ago. I'm not sure that the Rav felt his work to be meaningful only for Man. Of course, maybe the best way to update his work for our current generation is to just to add that it might not matter what he originally intended. It matters what we think, as his and others' students.
Agav, why can't we celebrate and revere the Rav, make him our thinker and rebbe (and mascot, if need be), while disagreeing with him? Too dialectical?
Post a Comment
<< Home