Ars Judaica 2009 1

Jewish- 3 (Syracuse, 2006); Biblical Palimpsests: Biblical Palimpsests: (in preparation). (New Brunswick, NJ, 1997); in the Jewish Art in America: An Introduction American Artist, Jewish Images 2 (2006): 135–50. See also also See 135–50. (2006): 2 AJ Reasons for their lack of recognition are not hard to American Artists and the Holocaust last five chapters of and in the last six chapters of (Lanham, MD, 2007), as well as in exhibition catalogue essays and Jewish Recent in Mysticism and “Spiritualism including articles, journal American Art,” Narrative Cycles by Jewish American Artists world, and even in the Jewish art world, bother to look at perhaps is myopia This art. American Jewish contemporary due to the combined effects of a still evident abhorrence in the art world to anything parochial,among Jews to assimilate into mainstream culture, and an the yearning hostile a in profile Jewish low a keep to desire present ever world. Many major Jewish museums rarely exhibit Jewish art, particularly with explicitly Jewish subjectCritics andmatter. historians tend to avoid writing about it or even noticing it. Nevertheless, there are dozens of Jewish American artists with whom I have corresponded in the still ignored, being to resigned while who, years twenty last persist. These artists, with minimal support from patrons, museums, galleries, or the press, choose to create such art because of their own religious, spiritual, and personal commitments. As a result, I will state categorically that art American Jewish of age golden a of midst the in are we – and especially a golden age of religiously based art. Jewish subject matter based on the Holocaust, Jewish feminism, and the ancient texts – the midrashim, commentaries, Bible, and though Kabbalah. Yet, Talmud, the artists who create this art have been largely ignored, they are the ones who are reimagining and reconfiguring Jewish American art. few persons find. in Too the general public, in the art 3 I have discussed the works of many contemporary artists in Matthew Baigell Matthew Literary 1 Levinson Levinson 2 , when he noted that noted he when , Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Akedah McBee’s Richard prefers the customary Akedah, except when when except Akedah, customary the prefers (Bloomington, 2008), 4. Reimagining and Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Exiles on Main Street: Jewish American Exiles on Main Street: Jewish American and Writers Ars Judaica Literary Culture

An analogous situation exists today with regard to different spellings appear in direct quotations, titles of published works, or names of works of art. Ed.] American although several paintings are entitled “Akeda.” I am deeply grateful to him for his many contributions to this essay with regard to style, form, and content. [ to say about “the ways in which Judaism and Jewishness have been reimagined and reconfigured.” writers such as Gertrude Stein, Lillian Hellman, Arthur particular any “evince not did Mailer Norman and Miller, inclination to return to Jewishness,” or to have much his recent book, Culture Literary American and Writers historian Julian Levinson made an important point in decades there has been a proliferation of art devoted to be difficult – impossible with Lichtenstein and Krasner – to find in their work any interest in a reimagined or reconfigured within Jewishness. the However, last two the stark distinction between those celebrated and those Judy Lichtenstein, Roy as such figures Popular overlooked. Chicago, and Lee Krasner are well known but it would contemporary Jewish American artists – in this instance, fact that an author is Jewish does not mean that he or she or he that mean not does Jewish is author an that fact has contributed anything to the development of Jewish American culture. Lewisohn, Alfred Kazin, and Irving Howe, and others whose works embody such qualities. In other words, the contrasts these authors with Emma Lazarus, Ludwig 2 Julian Levinson, 1 Richard McBee prefers to spell the Binding of Isaac as “Akeidah,” Binding of Isaac, by Richard McBee (b. 1947), some background information needs to be presented. Before considering the paintings of the Akedah, or the Matthew Baigell 2 Ars Judaica 2009 their Jewish heritage in order to join the mainstream. the join to order in heritage Jewish their behind leave to wanted desperately who artists Jewish of the insistent universalist intentions of previous generations challenging blatantly are matter subject Jewish religious interests throughtheancienttexts. and values own their exploring from artists inhibit might that organizations religious or authorities rabbinical central no are there that fact the and movement, belief) irony and rejection of values. In fact, they are part of a of part are they fact, In values. of rejection and irony post-modernist repudiate artists many authenticity, of sense personal and feelings inmost their communicate to twentieth-century art. And further, because of their desire Judaism andtheirJewishheritage. who also happily accept Americans and want to examine quite openly assimilated relatively as living comfortable quite feel now Rather,they Europe. of parts in exists still it as and exists), still it (although decades past in as Jewish American artists contend with open anti-Semitism must Nor styles. popular latest the in work to or States) culture of their host country (in this instance, the United the adopt and heritage their abandon must they if as feel longer no artists American Jewish contemporary Many interests, ortodosomethingfor spiritual and religious their develop to group, a to belong to Jewish, themselves identify to need their mention turn to Jewish subject matter. It just happened. Still others their for explanations logical no are there said Some not. did others homes, traditional in up grew some directly, deeply felt, if not easily articulated. Concerning the artists and personal, entirely varied, are motivations because possible are generalizations No models. overarching no are there that understood be should it and varied quite are Answers decades? few last the in themes Jewish to based broad the systems, spiritual Eastern various and Kabbalah in interest an includes which 1980s the in America in of rise Movement Renewal the Jewish the 1970s, the in feminism 1967, in War Six-Day the after Judaism in pride found newly the include artists these affected have Jewish American artists who concentrate on secular or They also reject the determined secularism of most most of secularism determined the reject also They General factors in the wider Jewish world that might that world Jewish wider the in factors General turn to artists prompted has What ask: might We ba‘al teshuvah (the return of secular Jews to religious klal Yisrael . 4

generations of Jewish American artists and it has been, so been, has it and artists American Jewish of generations current the by interests and attitudes in change major a ideas through the text. Over the years, he has created at created has he years, the Over text. the through ideas own his explicate to rather but itself for text a explicate to or view of point particular a to bound feel not does but subjects, Jewish paint to and Jewish be to chooses others, like he, environment, American open the in that point the make to information biographical this note I artists. American Jewish among observant religiously most the of one became 1980s late the by and Patriarchs, the of stories the for regard keen a developed Judaism, of aspects religious in interested more became he time, In Judaism. motivating force, he has said, that focused his attention on the was narrative, religious a than rather communal a as matter,subject viewedbiblical initially of depiction His really act upon it until he approached his fortieth birthday. that he was a Jew until he was twenty years old and did not mother was a secular German Jew. He did not become aware his and ancestry American Native and Irish mixed of was father His practices. religious Orthodox follow to chooses Jewish of wave American artists younger who feel completely at home in America, this of part McBee, Richard far, largelyunrecorded. programs, and visiting the destroyed European destroyed the visiting and programs, studies Jewish and cultural Jewish in participating Bible, study, prayer, celebration, social action, etc.), studying the an through in interest generations immigrant European eastern secular-religious earlier the of that from different culture American Jewish contemporary to recognizable a attempting build is that movement decentralized broad, 5 Stephen J. Whitfield, Whitfield, J. Stephen 5 SeeBaigell, 4 and meaningful Jewish culture.” Jewish meaningful and viable a of core inspirational the form can religion “Only and Judaism,” culture—without Jewish within living of Jewish—and being to way serious a longer no simply is “There wrote: recently who Whitfield, Stephen historian culturalwith agree to seem also They life. American in fullyparticipating while grandparents and parents their NH, 1999),224–37. klezmer Jewish ArtinAmerica music, attending In Search of American Jewish Culture Jewish American of Search In , 96–97. 5 In short, there has been havura s (groups for(groups s (Hanover, shtetl s ofs Ars Judaica 2009 3

Akeida hard McBee Collection, reproduced from photos photos from reproduced Collection, McBee hard , 1982, oil on canvas, 70 x 90 in. All illustrations for this this illustrations All in. 90 x 70 canvas, on oil 1982, , for Akeida

Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard McBee has explored various aspects and interpretations and aspects various explored has McBee on an understanding of the human mind before it became it before mind human the of understanding an on and aware of itself, before self-consciousness, subjectivity, free will became common (fig. 1). For example, Bruno disjunctive event with multiple, irresolvable points of view, a problematic encounter between God, Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah that perplexes him both as a believing Jew aware of biblical exegeses and as a modern individual aware of psychological interpretations and issues about family he interrelationships. has Remarkably, come to reflects narrative this of nature inscrutable the that believe the fundamentally inscrutable nature of God Himself. of the behavior of the principal characters of this biblical drama. One interesting observation of his, seen in (1982), created early in the series of paintings, is based 6 Some interpretations will be given below. 7 An additional prayer added on the Sabbath and the festivals. Fig. 1. 1. Fig. article works of are Ric the in artist the by supplied

6 McBee, like others through the the through others like McBee, 7 service. Musaf What is the meaning of this episode? To this day, it still it day, this To episode? this of meaning the is What The Binding of Isaac is told succinctly in nineteen both of passivity them. was Isaac’s plausible, but mourn. we Sarah Sarah. And troubling. ultimately, After working with this subject for close to thirty years, I still don’t understand, understand in a deeper more troubling way. but now I don’t I simply did not understand Himself. But I felt we had Abrahamto come to terms with or God then returns alone to Beersheba. generates books and articles laden with interpretations. moment, to stop. God then promises Abraham that his descendants will be “as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore” (Gen. 22:17). Abraham commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, which he last the at him, tells angel an until for prepare to proceeds made over sixty paintings on the theme of the Akedah. made over sixty paintings no apparent explanation, God verses of Genesis 22. With major effort has been to explore the relationships between relationships the explore to been has effort major Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah. Since the late 1970s, he has least sixteen multi-paneled series of narrative paintings Ruth,David, King and Esther Queen of lives the on based among others, but his Jacob, Joseph, Judah, and Tamar, victim, but as a receiver of a gift with thorns on it.” The Akedah, for McBee, is a thoroughly complex and relationship with challenge God. God We by engaging Him, not by abandoning Him. I do not see myself as a the biblical story? The big question for McBee is: “How can we live with a God who demands such a sacrifice?” His answer: go “We on living. Jews We have a rough Or, rather, how rather, Or, do we connect the human drama to have had since 2004, McBee has said: recognizable monotheism, God and Abraham appear to be irascible, inscrutable, difficult, and arbitrary figures. Indeed in one of the several recorded conversations we centuries, finds the story of the Akedah incomprehensible incomprehensible Akedah the of story the finds centuries, but gripping. In one of the earliest manifestations of both as the biblical reading of Rosh Hashanah and as one of the three central themes explicated in the Rosh Hashanah The narrative occupies a unique place in Judaism; the text is included in every morning service and is featured Matthew Baigell 4 Ars Judaica 2009 patterns ofbehavior. rational but anything indicating thus apart, falling of rational pattern, they oftentimes appear to be on the verge a of presence the indicate to Meant paintings. several in rolea play scene this to added McBee tiles The sound. without cry the heard, be cannot that cry Isaac’sthe is by recorded moments McBee, calls to his father as he touched him. To no avail. non-passive few the the of of one in behest the at but hand,son, other the on Isaac, angel. an of voice hallucinated his loves he because not knife the drops He work. at mind bicameral the ofexample an control, and awareness his beyond seemingly following the dictates of an interior motivation monstrous, and unselfconscious, inhuman, unreachable, Isaac, over towering person a as Abraham portrayed 8 This is a major premise of Bruno Snell in his his in Snell Bruno of premise major a is This 8 contingency.and agency humanof because but gods the of motivation the at not moving are – legs one’s example, for – body one’s that willed rather than performing at the insistence of the gods, self- is individual an that literature in time first the marks Snell in voices that direct his activities. his direct that voices hallucinates Abraham that say to as far so goes even and is entirelypost-bicameral. that consciousness reflective subjective, a instead reveals Ecclesiastes, which might date from the 2nd century BCE, of author(s) the whereas mind, bicameral the of example an is BCE, century 8th the to dating Amos, of Book the that suggests Jaynes Bible, the In activities. individual’s an controls force outside an which to according mind in will free of or self-consciousness of sense no is there that example, for held, Jaynes self-consciousness. of rise the Mind Bicameral the of Jaynes’ Julian Julian Jaynes, 9 10 See, for example, Silvano Arieli, Arieli, Silvano example, for 10 See, Greek PhilosophyandLiterature Contemporary Experience: The Akedah in Modern Jewish Literature,” Jewish Modern in Akedah The Experience: Contemporary Mind Mind The Iliad The Jaynes sees Abraham as having a bicameral mind mind bicameral a having as Abraham sees Jaynes (Boston,1976),69–99,295,304. (New York, 1981), 156; Michael Brown, “Biblical Myth and The Discovery of Mind . He calls this the action of the bicameral bicameral the of action the this calls He . The Origin of Consciousness: The Breakdown of the Bicameral The Origin of Consciousness: The Breakdown The Consciousness: of Origin The , which posited a similar theory of theory similar a posited which , (NewYork, 1982). 8 McBee was much taken by finds that Euripides’ Euripides’ that finds Abraham and the Contemporarythe and Abraham 9 In figure 1, McBee The Discovery of Mind inMind of Discovery The Medea

self-destruction duringtheHolocaust. in complicity Jewish as McBee), by not (but suggested times, was symbolized, faith it which, has in been modern his action has come to represent misguided, unquestioned argument, counter without son his sacrifice to willingness his of because God, of love limitless Abraham’s of Because Isaac. sacrifice to instructed been has Abraham Accordingly, Isaac. of sacrifice the completing finally, as, – way another in Isaac and Abraham of story the into inserted been also has Holocaust the But Holocaust. the andIsaac of Binding the between connection a make to McBee for step easy an therefore was It activities. state and demand from them the performance of murderous bicameral hypnotized virtually passive, a into populations notion that dictators can manipulate the minds of modern of two the “and passage, subsequent the it, to see would God that responded Abraham and sheep offering burnt the the for was where Abraham asked Isaac when that observed scholar one place, takes itself Isaac of Binding and uncontrollablethingshavehappened. unaccountable, uncounted, whom to and suffered have who generations post-Holocaust and pre- the of members those of figure representative a becomes Isaac regard, this in contrast to the fate of the victims of the Holocaust. resurrected was and died midrash, the in reported as who, conflict between generations. McBee also sees Isaac as a soul representing both the bicameral mind at work as well as the Isaac, over looms Abraham of figure macabre the right, (Ezek. 37:1–2) (fig. 2). Bodies lie everywhere. In the upper bones dry lifeless still the Ezekiel’sof valley the of vision evoked McBee victim, Holocaust a as Isaac portrays that compositions dramatic most his of one In Holocaust. the and Binding the between connections the about 11 See for example, example, 11 for See [1st ed.:London,1916]),228. York:,(New Friedlander Gerald by indices and 1970 introduction with Annual Pann,” and Lilien of Illustrations Bible: the in Sacrifice Judaism McBee also found in Jaynes’ book the interesting interesting the book Jaynes’ in found also McBee Of the actual moments immediately before the the before immediately moments actual the Of Around 1980, McBee completed a group of paintings paintings of group a completed McBee 1980, Around 40(1982/83):60. 31 (Winter 1982): 103, 105–11. See also Milly Heyd, “Isaac’s Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer Rabbi de Pirke […], translated and annotated 10 Jewish BookJewish 11 In In Ars Judaica 2009 5 prayer Musaf Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard to the sacrifice because his only desire was to do God’s will and therefore, as the Rosh Hashanah reminds God, “he suppressed his mercy to do Your will wholeheartedly […] So may Your Mercy suppress Your anger from upon us.” Other scholars have explained the common was it that commented have Some differently. act

12 , 1980, oil on canvas, 68 x 68 in , 1980, oil on canvas, , trans. Ephraim A. Speiser (Garden City, NY, 1964), 164. NY, , trans. Ephraim A. Speiser (Garden City, Abraham and Isaac and Abraham

Genesis 12 them walked on together” (Gen. 22:8), was perhaps the most poignant and eloquent silence in all of literature. Fig. 2. Fig. But the scholar’s response But depends the upon scholar’s how one views intentions. Perhaps Abraham looked forward Abraham’s Matthew Baigell 6 Ars Judaica 2009 the Binding. the issues. oedipal or behavior pagan in study case a or believer a of than a pietistic model of the blind, non-thinking behavior think of the Akedah as a paradigmatic Jewish story rather to prefers he because work McBee’s in found is scenarios 15 Aharon Agies, Agies, 15 Aharon 14 Wellisch, Erich Boehm, Omri 13 time. the at army an leading not was Abraham although battle, in success assure to or gods the propitiate to child a kill to world pagan the in to thetheophanyonMt.Sinai. leads that Covenant the Isaac’sof precondition a is faith thatin Moses Israel’sunder of election prefiguration a therefore, is, Binding The God. by chosen successor his becometo order in Abraham’sson as biological death itself. Finally, perhaps the entire episode symbolizes Isaac’s Sacrifice actual the about not but sacrifice, to readiness the as Judaism traditional within understood been also has episode the addition, In father. own his abandoned wanted to test Isaac’s loyalty because Abraham had earlier have might turn, in Abraham, explanation, another yet In reliability? (Abraham’s) his about certain not still was Hebecause him testing was God that thought Abraham perhaps so, Even sacrifices.” of terrible most the to him brought has faith very that though faith his in continues whoman religious a of paradigm “the be to considered obedience to God’s will? In this regard, Abraham has been of act an as son his sacrifice to Waswilling enough? he duty.religious of test a faith, Was Abraham’s strong faith Abraham to the test” (Gen. 22:1), that is, this was a test of put “God states: itself text biblical the As command. God’sIsaac’sby by as both well troubled as very question problem and wanted to kill his son. his kill to wanted and problem analysis posits that Abraham possibly had a reverse oedipal Sacrifice ofIsaac,theAkedah (New York, 2007),17. Chaim Navon, Chaim Religiosity Rabbinic Early in Deliverance Culture of a Spiritual Revolution Spiritual a of Culture Abramovitch, Hanoh Other scholars have offered yet more explanations of explanations more yet offered have scholars Other 15 For example, Abraham might have been The Binding of Isaac: A Religious Model of Disobedience of Model Religious A Isaac: of Binding The The Binding of I of Binding The Genesis and Jewish Thought Jewish and Genesis Isaac and Oedipus: A Study in Biblical Psychology of theof Psychology Biblical in Study A Oedipus: and Isaac The First Father, Abraham: The Psychology andPsychology Father,The First Abraham: The (London,2000[1954]),9–24,74–77. (Lanham, MD, 1994), 3, 123; Tammi 123; 3, 1994), MD, (Lanham, s aac and Messiah: Law,andMessiah: Martyrdom and aac 13 Alternatively, Freudian (Albany, 1988), 30. See also 14 (Jersey City, 2008); Henry Henry 2008); City, (Jersey But neither of these of neither But

Fig. 3. sheep for a burnt offering (verse 7). In the commentaries, the In 7). (verse offering burnt a for sheep of lack the only questions Isaac example, for Genesis, In passive. as him presents usually and responses, various his Legends oftheJews Ginzberg’sLouis in recorded are monumental which ofmany centuries, the over accrued have that Sarah and Isaac, Abraham, about commentaries and midrashim text itself and to rely on the creative stimulation of various about the Binding, prefers to study and restudy the biblical literature modern the with acquainted well obviously McBee,endless. are artist an for options the And event. God’s and intentions as there are people who have written motivations about the Abraham’s of interpretations 16 Louis Ginzberg, 1985 [1sted.1843]). Kierkegaard, Søren of and 8–11 1946]), ed. [1st 1953 Trask(Princeton, R. Willard in Auerbach Erich of interpretations famous the here add should I 12–19. Art and Thought Milgrom, Schneider,J. McBee often returns to Isaac’s character, examines examines character, Isaac’s to returns often McBee The point of all of this is that there are as many as are there that is this of all of point The Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Westernin Literature Reality of Representation The Mimesis:

Building The Binding of Isaac: The Akedah—A Primary Symbol of Jewish of Symbol Primary Akedah—A The Isaac: of Binding The , 1994,oiloncanvas, 36xin Fear and Tremblingand Fear Sarah: Mother of Nations of Mother Sarah: The Legends of the Jews (Berkeley,Boehm, 24; 2, 1988), .

16 , trans. Alastair Hannay (New York, York, (New Hannay Alastair trans. , , 7 vols. (Philadelphia, 1909–38). (New York, 2004), 105; Jo Jo 105; 2004), York, (New The Binding of Isaac of Binding The , trans. trans. , The The , Ars Judaica 2009 7 Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard Then, in a relief sculpture, a medium rarely used by McBee, he shows the sacrifice scene itself (fig. 4). In this work, which includes elements fromsurrounding the frescoes the Torah niche in the famous synagogue at Dura Europos (244–56 CE) synagogue,imploringly looks which right lower the in ram a included McBee has at Abraham, still preoccupied with Isaac on the altar. In domestic scene of family collaboration until one notices that they are on different planes in the shallow pictorial space, separated by a chasm which represents the divide between the slaughterer and the victim. , 1987, sculptamold, in 48 x 48 1987, , In this building scene, McBee makes makes McBee scene, building this In 17 , 1:279, 280. Akeida

Legends Fig. 4. 4. Fig. other by dressing both in modern clothing – as if they were they if as – clothing modern in both dressing by other constructing something in their backyard. It is virtually a the point of showing both men cooperating with each 17 Ginzberg, 17 not become blemished and therefore unfit for sacrifice if he moved (fig. 3). will. Isaac then helps his father build the sacrificial altar and asks Abraham to bind him securely so that he would Abraham tells Isaac that he (Isaac) is the offering. Isaac gladly consents because he understands that it is God’s Matthew Baigell 8 Ars Judaica 2009 reveal itselftoAbraham. and to run to unable was bush, a in Satan by hidden ram, then have avoided the trauma of his near murder. But the altar.the on Isaac would than Isaac rather it placed have had seen the ram before raising his knife to Isaac, he might 19 Ginzberg, Kessler, L. Herbert and Weitzman Kurt See 18 unfolding before scene her. the interest great with watches text, biblical the in mentioned not although who, Sarah, right, upper the Fig. 5. Synagogue andChristianArt

Sacrifice Legends , 2003,oiloncanvas andcollage, 20x24in , 1:282;seealso 18 According to a midrash, if Abraham (Washington, DC,1990),pls.3and193. 19 Pirke deRabbiEliezer The Frescoes of the Durathe of Frescoes The , 228. raging in Isaac’s mind immediately after being set free.set being after Isaac’simmediately in mind raging emotions tumultuous the symbolizes portion central The 5).(fig. ground the to tumbled just has he if as bound, Isaac crouches in the lower right, his arms and ankles still and strokes, brush of jumble a is center the In left. the to altar the placed McBee words, collaged include that four paintings, strongest his of one In commentaries. ancient various in described figure distant more a as and father, murderous a of son the as invention, imagines Isaac’s immediate reaction as a person, own his of works of variety a in McBee, experience? What were the consequences of Isaac’s terribleIsaac’s of consequences the were What Sacrifice , part of a mini-series of mini-series a of part , Ars Judaica 2009 9 Isaac only only Isaac 20 , trans. Judah Goldin , 1:281–82, 286. Legends The Last Trial Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard Among McBee’s responses to Among these McBee’s possibilities, two (Philadelphia, 1967), 3–6; Ginzberg, but did not physically return to Beersheba with Abraham, with Beersheba to return physically not did but or he died and was miraculously resurrected. lying on the ground, presumably dead (fig. 6). The painting The 6). (fig. dead presumably ground, the on lying gains power as the viewer contemplates the reasons for temporary demise and Isaac’s by the bright color in the reappears in the biblical text 92 lines later when he finally he when later lines 92 text biblical the in reappears meets his bride, Rebecca. works from the 2003 series stand out. One shows Isaac 20 See, for20 example, Sholom Spiegel, , 2003, oil on canvas and collage, 20 x 24 in and collage, , 2003, oil on canvas Sand and Stars

But what of Isaac’s whereabouts But after what his of near Isaac’s death? or perhaps he visited instead the Garden of Eden for a number of years. In short, he either survived his ordeal to study Torah for three years. Or perhaps he died and was and died he perhaps Or years. three for Torah study to brought back to life immediately after leaving the altar Where does he go and what does he do? The commentaries, The do? he does what and go he does Where both ancient and modern, offer many suggestions.lagged behind Abraham, was sent home at night, or went He never know the answers. The questions McBee near- raises are these: given Isaac’s mental his regain to able be ever he will experience, death equilibrium and will he ever lead will a normal life? We Fig. 6. 6. Fig. 10 Ars Judaica 2009 Matthew Baigell able to communicate with each other as before or be or before as other each with communicate to able befather.Willthey his to Isaac of responses possible sacrifice scene. the after again other each to speak never they Bible, the to According 7). (fig. forever perhaps lost has he son the Isaac, of soul ghost-like unreachable, the to out reaching Abraham shows inventions, poignant most his of one in McBee, painting, another In below). (discussed Binding the of knowledge and in place Sarah’s about thoughts to inference that someone actually died, also leads the viewer the by work, This Presence. Divine indicating left upper Fig. 7. In another group of paintings, McBee explores the explores McBee paintings, of group another In

Ghost , 2003,oiloncanvas andcollage, 20x24in is the more likely answer.likely entitled more work the the is In latter the thinks McBee 8)? (fig. estranged permanently obvious lack of trust Isaac must have felt for his father. father. his for felt have must Isaac trust of lack obvious differences between a father and a son as well as the more generational unbridgeable both suggests two the between spaceThe face. his in expressed still incomprehension here. But Isaac pulls away. Even in profile, we see fear and human fully is He actions. his explain to and apologize to facial expression seems to show remorse as well as a desire Abraham’smind, bicameral the of motivation internal of lack the reflecting longer No clothing. modern in dressed illustrated, Abraham, in ancient garb, reaches out to Isaac After , here , Ars Judaica 2009 11 , 2002, oil on canvas, 8 x 84 in , 2002, oil on canvas, Isaac, Abraham, Sarah Abraham, Isaac,

Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard In the midrashim, we learn that Abraham told Sarah Fig. 10. 10. Fig. Isaac away for long. On parting, she said that she might never see Isaac again. And then in a variety of scenarios, Sarah is said to have diedalone, when she whenwas told that Isaac hadAbraham been murdered, returned and when Isaac returned home – the first two from the the last from incomprehensible shock presumed tragedy, back, Isaac lying on and the a altar, diminutive Sarah standing in a tent in he upper right (fig. 10). Heightened by the stark abstraction of space, inability the viewer’s to predict next Abraham’s move, and the portentous terrifying with charged is painting the ram, the of absence whole the concerns now test God’s Suddenly implications. his to relation his is What do? Abraham will What family. physical a at remain Sarah can long How son? his to wife, and emotional distance? How long can she endure the knowledge of what her husband almost did to her only the son? family Will reconstitute itself? A work such as this clearly thought reflects mentioned McBee’s at the beginning of this essay about his confusion years ago and probably will we that in level deeper a at confusion his now never be able to make sense of the entire episode. that he was taking Isaac to study and to learn the ways of God, a boldfaced lie. Sarah asked Abraham not to keep Just as as Just 21 , pls. 3 and 193. Frescoes , 2003, oil on canvas, 20 x 24 in , 2003, oil on canvas, , 1994, oil on canvas, 68 x 84 in , 1994, oil on canvas, Abraham Abraham Abraham After

Although Sarah’s connection Although to Sarah’s the Binding is not 21 For Dura Europos, see Weitzmann and Kessler, and Kessler, For Dura Europos, see Weitzmann 21 indicates Sarah’s physical proximity to the scene. indicates Sarah’s on various midrashim concerning her knowledge of and fate. In a responses painting to based Isaac’s on a panel in McBee Europos, Dura at synagogue the in niche Torah the mentioned in Genesis 22 or in Genesis 23 (concerned with her death), McBee has made many paintings based Abraham, as indicated in Genesis 22:19, then returns to Beersheba without Isaac (fig. 9). Fig. 9. 9. Fig. in the image in the ancient synagogue, we see Abraham’s Fig. 8. 8. Fig. 12 Ars Judaica 2009 Matthew Baigell Fig. 12. Fig. 11.

Sarah’s Fear after Ardon Isaac Returns, 2007, oiloncanvas, 18xin , 2006,oiloncanvas, 24x18in love. God’sAbraham’sabout and promise understood marital she thought she everything undermines ultimately that life of senselessness existential the means which vertigo,” from what has been called “radical doubt […], an attack of dies Sarah terms. religious strictly more in interpreted be might Sarah) of trials the exploring series 16-part new a in is (it latter the of starkness graphic The son. dead her of corpse the with encounter personal a of representation a is former The powerful. equally but understated, other the emotional, highly is painting one ways, possible all in Binding McBee’sthe understand to desire open-ended in and 11) (fig. Ardon after paintings, two in here seen is years, recent prayer, and occurs immediately after a section about God’s penitential the Blessings, Eighteen the or ‘Amidah, the the of recitation second The Fear the this called has McBee blessings. morning theafter Akedah the of recitation the following occurs God, indivisible the in belief of statement archetypal the suggests thecollapseoffaith. joy.and 24 23 Avivah Zornberg, 22 Ginzberg, two the (Shaharit) servicemorning daily the in where contemplating when events of sequence this about thought often has McBee son. his release to instructed was Abraham when mission his from deflected then was but Isaac, of soul the collect to way his on been have must Angel the test, Abraham’s aboutserious was God if that reasoned McBee soul. her or his collect to Death of Angel God the dispatches die, to person a for time is it when Traditionally, Akedah. the in meaning for search continuous his into Abraham, of God’stest of personification a Death, of Shema Lord isOne.” Passions oftheMatriarchs TuchmanAranoff Rapoport, Shera E. also Sandra See and 128. mentioned inseveralbookspreviouslynoted. In 2006, McBee introduced the figure of the Angelthe of figure the introduced McBee 2006, In because of its proximity to the story of the Akedah. 23 The former painting, then, connotes loss, the latter , the first word of the prayer “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the 22 Sarah, a figure who has fascinated McBee in Legends (2006) in which she sees the body of Isaac , 1:274–86; 5:256. Versions5:256. 1:274–86; , Sarah’sof also are demise Genesis: The Beginning of Desire Isaac Returns Isaac Shema (NewYork, 2004),73–77. s are recited. are s (fig. 12). As examples of Shema is said right before 24 (Philadelphia, 1995), The first Sarah’sFear Shema of Shema Shema The The , Ars Judaica 2009 13 , oil on canvas, each panel 60 x 72 in each , oil on canvas, Urban Akeida Urban

Richard McBee’s Akedah Series: Reconfiguring and Reimagining Art Jewish Akedah McBee’s Richard his own interpretations and midrashim by inventing, for imagining or Death of Angel the calls he figure a example, how Abraham might want to reconnect with Isaac. The main character might be Abraham or Isaac or Sarah or even God. McBee has even seemed irreligious by casting Abraham, the patriarch, as a person with mind a– which places bicameralAbraham very much within the history of both secular literature and the development Fig. 13. 13. Fig. of (fig. Shema s in this way McBee feels feels McBee the 25 Shema Urban Akeidah Shema , eds. Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz Meir and Scherman Nosson eds. , In short, one mini-series within the larger series The most developed work in this particular group of (New York, 1984), 23–29, 89–91. (New York, The Complete Art Scroll Siddur Scroll Art Complete The the open American atmosphere, he seeks out and creates orthodox, but he is unafraid to approach thein materialan unorthodox way, even as an outsider lookingat the seemingly strange behavior of the key players. In in is not to say that artists in other countries cannot do likewise.) McBee considers himself to be religiously to another. The end is neverand I agree that the tocurrent American environment be reached. McBee especially lends itself to projects such as this one. (This provokes another mini-series and so on. New insights lead to further insights. One plausible explanation leads here will undoubtedly lead to many more paintings in the in paintings more many to lead undoubtedly will here years to come. somebody. But this obviously leads to additional questions additional to leads obviously this But somebody. and their multiple answers built around the key question: why did God allow Sarah to meditations die? McBee’s terrible logic of Sarah’s death, the only person who dies as dies who person only the death, Sarah’s of logic terrible a result of the Binding. The Angel of Death had to take still-living but shattered Isaac and heads for Sarah in an adjacent building whom we see recoiling from the scene before her. For McBee, this image begins to explain the the scene. In the right-hand panel, the Angel of Death, now commanded by God to spare Isaac, abandons the but hesitates and instead stares at the viewer as the angel viewer the Simultaneously, desist. to Abraham to out calls is also invited to call out to the Angel of Death to quit paintings is a large diptych, entitled 13). On the left, the Angel of Death, the black angel,approaches Abraham as he is about to slaughter Isaac, brings us into our land. that even after the terror described in the Akedah, the same God loves, is merciful, teaches us, and ultimately 25 is still possible, necessary, and redemptive. is still possible, necessary, prompted McBee to approach the puzzle of the Binding in Binding the of puzzle the approach to McBee prompted yet another way: that, despite the actions of God, belief abundant abundant love. McBee labels this Love because of the nature of the immediately preceding paragraphs. Joining together the two 14 Ars Judaica 2009 Matthew Baigell and legend, as instruments of God’s will and as individuals oftheJews. theGod incomprehensible butfamiliarGod, with the more religiously oriented desire to understand an as strictly human encounters and has also combined these issues personality individual and family of considerations his in commentaries and interpretations various explored has He restraints. or restrictions institutional any from free be, might practices religious and beliefs particular his whatever artist, American Jewish contemporary paradigmatic a becomes McBee regard, this In limits. no knows inquiry of sense His self-consciousness. human of The key figures float, then, in a nether world of myth of world nether a in then, float, figures key The his ownversionofthetruth. as part of and a community and as a solitary individual seeking believes credit, great challenges, accepts and questions, and views himself both his to McBee, neighbors. next-door were they if as thinking, be might they what based on our own blind religious faith or trying to imagine Wepredicament their accepting both, of edge the on teeter understanding. full or knowledge true no have we whichof plan preordained a out acting figures remote as or situation extraordinary an in caught people ordinary as McBee and the viewer can relate to the actors in this drama bothpaintings, his Through feeling. human of capable