In which the paint colors the artist
September 7th, 2006
I sometimes wonder whether the first artist is G-d. Perhaps it is the references to
G-d forming man out of the earth- or the jewish prayers comparing G-d to a potter and his people his work. Maybe it is because the world is beautiful- or as my friend Sara would say- “Life is Beautiful”. But- and in the face of the uniqueness of G-d, I must, at least at times, view G-d as a kind of artist that has not existed before or since. When the artist, as the artist is generally understood- creates, something that exists is transformed into another thing. A stick of charcoal and a pad of paper are crafted into a depiction of a bird, for example.
G-d- as creator, is the creator of birds- the world- not out of materials available to him prior to creations, but- astoundingly- out of nothing.
The creation of “something out of nothing” is explored by Ramban, in his commentary on the book of Bereishit (Genesis 1:1- dibbur hamatchil bereishit barah elokim). It is a long comment, even for Ramban- about the nature of this creation, and of G-ds creation in general. In it, Ramban points out that:
“The holy one, blessed be he, created all that has been created from complete absence, and we don’t have by us in the holy language (a word for) extracting something out of nothing. Rather, we have the word “Bara” (created/differentiated). And there is not a thing under or above the sun that is now made from nothing.”
The lack of a word, while it does not imply the lack of capacity to understand something- does imply a difficulty in expressing it. It suggests that the referent of that word does not exist in the forefront of our consciousness, but must be assembled by a series of analogies in order to be expressed or understood. The absence of a word in hebrew for the creation of something out of nothing implies an awareness on the part of the speakers of the language that when we create, we create from the materials we have before us.
The human artist- since she is creating something out of something, is involved in a different project. In place of the imposition of the will to express on a medium, the artist enters into a relationship with that medium. The artist takes the medium and shapes it. The medium, meanwhile, provides its properties to the artist as the framework she has to work with. In this way the medium limits and aids the artist in the act of creation.
This painting is a meditation on the relationship of another creator to the created, and to the process of creation- namely the mother-child relationship, and the process of birth. As I painted it, I thought of the many births of my life ( a person has many “births”, “mothers” and “children”, in a certain sense). I thought of the creation of Adam-from the earth and of the creation of Eve from Adam (making Adam the first human “mother” perhaps?). I considered the difference between creating using external substances vs. creating with the internal being. It would seem that the creation with the internal being is the most g-d-like form, and we learn in Tractate Kiddushin, that there are three partners in the creation of man-The mother, the father, and G-d, making them all participants- albeit in different ways, in a joint creation.
As I painted I considered the effect of the medium on the final product, the joy of creation, the pain of it. I began to tell a story of sorts, segmenting this experience, ordering and reordering it.
Now, looking back about a year later I see that the canvass itself guided not only the shape of the painting- but the nature of these thoughts. It is oblong, and as such seems to lend itself to multiple points of linked focus- to a form of visual narrative. I created, as I can only do, using what already existed. I wonder how it would look had I chosen a different canvas- had I used oils instead of acrylics, or sculpted it. I suppose that in a sense, I have just done that, in this new exploration in words on a blog.
