Last week Matthias Wivel discussed Crumb’s Genesis in relation to the work of Rembrandt and Breughel. Matthias argued in particular that Rembrandt’s engagement with Biblical themes
is clearly more sophisticated, dedicated and emotionally complex than Crumb’s Genesis, but it is nevertheless instructive to compare the two, because of the intersection of their methods and goals.
Like Bruegel and Rembrandt, Crumb is a humanist (in the modern as opposed to the renaissance sense of the word), observant of human behavior and—as his richly varied sketchbooks demonstrate—clearly attentive to the world around him….
Matthias discusses at some length what he finds valuable in Crumb’s Genesis…and I’ve talked about my own reservations about the book elsewhere as well. In fact, I talked about them so much that I have more or less pissed everyone off, so I thought perhaps I’d give it a rest for a post. But I love that Rembrandt illustration that Matthias introduced me to in his essay, so I thought for a change I’d talk briefly about what I find so striking about the image.
In the first place, the thing that gets me initially isn’t exactly the fact that it’s attentive to the world. On the contrary, it’s the quickness of the sketch; the way you can almost see Rembrandt’s hand scribbling forms out of nothing. It’s only secondarily that Abraham’s face leaps out with its half-quizzical, half-stricken expression…that face being the only thing in the drawing (besides perhaps the angel’s right hand) which seems finished. The drawing seems to have happened so quickly that you almost wonder if Abraham is reacting to the angel’s words or to the shock of materializing. It’s as if he’s just been suddenly and surprisingly beamed onto the planet.
The angel is even sketchier than Abraham — his one wing is actually transparent, and through it we see the other, which is little more than a child’s scribble. His left hand is a misshapen paw; you get the sense that if we could see his face, it would be little more than an indistinct mass (maybe *that’s* why Abraham looks distrubed!)
Of course, we can’t actually see the angel’s face, because Rembrandt has positioned us behind his shoulder. The angel is doubly obscured; he’s half-formed with his perhaps nonexistent features in shadow. We can’t see the angel and we can’t see what Rembrandt sees in the angel. The composition, the technique, and the insistent focus on the process of creation all seem to emphasize the mystery that Abraham confronts. Because of all of that, this drawing does not seem to me to be humanist — or not solely humanist. Instead, it sets a powerfully imagined human against a perhaps even more powerfully imagined something else, which is presented as both a reality (that incongruously solid right hand) and a question.
Matthias in his essay argued that visuals are potentially more ambiguous than words, and I certainly feel here that the drawing is about its own spaces. Who made the face of Abraham? What is the face of God? Where are we in this picture, and what would we see if the angel turned towards us? And perhaps most insistently (if this is showing us the moment after the interrupted sacrifice) where is Isaac? What is he doing, what does he feel? Presumably he’s just outside the sketch, swallowed in the blankness the picture comes out of and goes into. The sacrifice is as unknowable as God himself — perhaps because, in a Christian context, the sacrifice and God are the same.
It’s possible that I’ve completely muddled what’s happening here — I’m neither a Biblical scholar nor a Rembrandt scholar, and my ignorance is sufficient that I’m not (as I indicated) even positive that this is supposed to represent the post-sacrificial moment. (Hopefully Matthias will let me know where I’ve gone astray.) But I feel like Rembrandt’s drawing is, as Matthias says, a visual exegesis — that it demands a conversation. Abraham is preparing to talk to us, as well as to his creator. It’s not a comic, so there aren’t any words, but the picture speaks.
______
Update: This is part of a roundtable on Crumb’s Genesis. The whole discussion is here.
Thank you for a sensitive and suggestive close-reading, Noah.
Only one part made me pause: the use of that “visual exegesis” term again.
As Matthias uses the term, “visual exegesis” does not imply whether or not an image or interpretation “demands a conversation.” Indeed, he says that the term, as he uses it, is “value-neutral” — meaning that it would cover the most subtle sketch and the ham-handed scribble.
All that an “exegetical” adaptation must do is, at some level, try to “extract” “basic human insights…from the text.” And that, as we have seen, is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
It seems that the term — now divorced from theology, aesthetics, history — has been evacuated of its power or purpose. It’s just a smiley face that we slap on texts we like to talk about. Or it’s a coverall term (like “text,” “interpretation,” etc.) that seems to apply everywhere.
(Again, this is just my meditation on the term itself. It takes nothing away from your interpretive and personal reading of the image. Sorry for the early-morning detour.)
Yeah…I think I’m trying to move the term towards being less value-neutral here, perhaps. Maybe not entirely successfully….
I think you are successful, Noah, at giving the term a little meat. Really nice post.
But I also think Peter’s got it exactly right, in terms of the conversation overall.
Really nice piece, Noah. I really like the point about the obscured face of the angel.
I’m happy you like the drawings. You should take a look at some of the many fine (or even the not so) books of Rembrandt drawings out there — it’s incredibly inspiring. His drawing is masterful on the level where it’s almost completely unintimidating. He makes you believe that you can draw like that and encourages you to try!
I believe that particular drawing is illustrating Genesis Chapter 18, perhaps the bargaining for the righteous of Sodom, but who knows? It could be after the interrupted Sacrifice, as you say. I should note, though, that the finished hand you’re describing belongs to Abraham, not the angel.
As for ‘visual exegesis’, I don’t quite get the confusion. I understand the term ‘exegesis’ in its traditional meaning, as designating an interpretative effort in relation to a religious text. As such, it may be good or bad, and the term is therefore value-neutral. ‘Visual’, because it happens in images instead of language.
Yes, I was wondering if it was Sodom…but there should be three angels then, shouldn’t there? Weird.
That arm is totally wacky too…you’re obviously right now that I look at it, but it’s positioned really oddly — I don’t think it’s anatomically possible for his arm to do that. The gesturing though makes it seem like it would be more Sodom than Isaac, though — he looks like he’s arguing, which would be really weird for the sacrifice scene.
I think the point about visual exegesis is that there’s a question in my mind of whether an illustration in itself is an exegesis, I guess. Does translating from medium to medium automatically rise to the level of exegesis — which is originally a term that indicates a fairly formal or deliberate discussion of a religious text, I think. You’re saying it does, I know. I’m not certain…would you consider a translation itself an act of exegesis?
A translation would have to be an act of exegesis. You make translation choices in accordance with what you think the text “means” (and secondarily to reproduce the beauty, rhythms, etc. of the language)—that is a de facto interpretation, since the only literal translation would be to just reprint it in the original language….
A translation would have to involve interpretation…but that doesn’t necessarily mean it would have to be exegesis.
I guess the question is does any interpretation qualify as exegesis? Isn’t exegesis usually seen as a more formal and intentional effort? Translation seems like a different tradition — not unrelated, but not the same thing.
I’m with Noah — it’s being used in arguments that claim Crumb’s work represents sustained critical engagement.
Plus, if you look at old texts that claim to be exegesis, they’re not really just “close readings;” they’re critical analyses with context from “theology, aesthetics, history”…
Yeah, technically, exegesis probably should be used to mean pretty straightforward explication and the more critical stuff should be called hermeneutics, but the point of saying it was “visual exegesis” was to speak back against the charge that it wasn’t hermeneutic enough…
I’m ok with seeing it as “visual exegesis but not visual hermeneutics,” except that’s basically identical to Suat’s original point which the phrase visual exegesis was coined to rebut…
If one wants an airtight definition, one would probably have to go with Eric’s point, but I was also thinking more along the lines Noah is proposing — there has to be some kind of sustained explicatory or critical engagement going on. Of course, determining when that happens is then a subjective matter, but that’s the nature of much terminology anyway. And yes, my argument was that Crumb does this.
Being visual, it necessarily works differently than a linguistic exegesis and one therefore cannot apply the exact same criteria to it. This was part of my original point. Let’s put Crumb and comics aside for a moment and look Rembrandt, or any of the artists Suat was citing in his critique: it seems to me clear that they are offering an involved, critical engagement with the text, but of course working in purely visual terms, they will never create something that is directly comparable to a written critical analysis, or even a poetic rendition.
And I didn’t coin the term — I’ve seen it used on a number of occasions. Wish I could think of an example here and now though…
As for representations of the Sacrifice, Noah, they do (almost?) invariably feature Isaac, so yeah, I think this must be Chapter 18. Remember, the two other messengers/angels have gone ahead of Abraham and the Lord/angel, leaving them to debate.
In any case, this is another example of how images work differently to text: if we were reading the text, we would know what episode this was. Here, it’s left to us to figure out. Rembrandt provides some clues, but they’re not conclusive.
And yeah, I think your critique is a good example of visual analysis that isn’t… I shudder to say it now… ‘literary’, for what that’s worth.
Matthias, to comment 9: do you think there’s a difference, using the strict definitions, between “visual exegesis” and “visual hermeneutics” that’s comparable to the distinction in writing? And if you do, can you speak at all to what the difference is?
I’m very comfortable with the semantics “Suat and Noah were asking for a visual hermeneutics but what Crumb did is visual exegesis,” but I gather you think Crumb is hermeneutic as well…
Yeah, I’ve settled on thinking it’s the Sodom debate too…which is a pity because I really liked my reading if it was the sacrifice. So it goes…
I see what you’re saying about how we’d know if it were text and don’t if it’s visual — which as you suggest is both an irritating and an entertaining aspect of visual ambiguity. I bet though that it’s also just historical and cultural distance; I doubt most of Rembrandt’s original audience would have been confused for a moment about what was being represented (they probably would have gotten the arm too.)
I’d agree that Rembrandt’s drawing here is a visual exegesis, obviously (even if it’s one I have trouble parsing!)
Well, we don’t know exactly, but Rembrandt was by all accounts drawing this for himself. Most of his biblical drawings, and drawings period, weren’t drawn with paintings or prints in mind, but for their own sake. He may well have used them to teach his students, but mostly they were just sketches, like the ones most artists make. Rembrandt no doubt knew what he was representing, but since he didn’t have an audience in mind, literal clarity was maybe not his first priority. I don’t know, In any case, it’s relatively open to us.
Caro, I hesitate to pronounce further upon the meaning(s) of exegesis, lest I say something stupid :) Someone with greater familiarity with theological writing would be able better to assess the usefulness of the term. Suat, are you there?
I do think Crumb is hermeneutic, but wasn’t thinking much about a distinction between the two when I wrote my piece. I used ‘exegesis’ in specific response to, I believe, Noah’s piece on Kierkegaard, to compare what Crumb was doing, and more generally in its specific sense of an explication/interpretation of religious text.
How would you distinguish the two?
Mathias: I was definitely thinking more along the lines which Caro suggests in her last comment, where “exegesis” is closer to hermeneutics than simple interpretation. I don’t have any insights to offer apart from what I’ve commonly experienced and this has been that biblical exegesis is usually critical and deep. I think a less demanding term in practice would be “commentary” (also part of exegesis) which can range from the very simple to immensely detailed. But “visual commentary” just doesn’t sound right.
Going back to what I wrote in the first article, I was specifically using Jeet’s terms of reference (further developed in comments) where he states that: “critics, with a handful of exceptions, haven’t had the intellectual resources to tackle the challenge presented by Crumb’s handling of the Bible. Ideally, the critics of the book should be well-versed in both comics and Biblical scholarship.” I still don’t think you need significant “intellectual resources” or to be well-versed in “biblical scholarship” to tackle Crumb’s visual exegesis and I think both Alan and yourself suggest (not directly but by elaboration) that it is largely unnecessary (or not useful) to even ask this of him. I think the comic requires a much more emotional (and I’m not using this word in a derogatory fashion since I value it) connection with the text and presentation.
I agree with that, but the same can be said for many of the old masters we’ve talked about here. An intellectual approach to them would be different in kind than to written biblical scholarship.
What’s interesting to me in this respect is how images perform exegesis, or whatever we want to call it — they will never operate in the same way as a theological treatise, although comics might because they also employ text.
Beyond that, of course, there’s the whole issue of theory and scholarship vs. art. The two have at times been conflated too much in these discussions, I think.
“Beyond that, of course, there’s the whole issue of theory and scholarship vs. art. The two have at times been conflated too much in these discussions, I think.”
I mean, to me the hard line that is often placed between the two in comics discussions is more problematic than possible conflations….
“there has to be some kind of sustained explicatory or critical engagement going on.”–
Isn’t this just the difference between a good exegesis and a crappy one?
Anyone read this one: http://tinyurl.com/36bf9us
? Any thoughts? The title is certainly very appealing.
It looks to me like he is halted in mid-sacrifice- (invisible) Isaac being held down by Abraham’s visible hand.
And I totally agree with Matthias about the inspirational quality of Rembrandt’s drawings- its a generous talent that involves the onlooker and invites participation. Maybe it’s the freedom of the stokes or the careful placement of detail, but that generosity is in so many of his drawings, it can be really overwhelming to look through a good collection of his ink work.
Rembrandt would have been a hell of a cartoonist.
That book might be interesting, Domingos, although what I’ve read by Bal didn’t bowl me over. She used to be rather old school structuralist, which ain’t my cuppa. But perhaps one should look it up — the title does sound intriguing (Bal, incidentally, has also written on the Bible from a feminist perspective, many years ago).
Eric, you might be right, but I was trying for some kind of equivalence with how the term is used in relation to writing. It’s a subjective judgment of course, but as I said, I would say it’s exegesis if “explicatory or critical” — which can then be good or crappy or whatever.