After viewing Robert Crumb’s work
in his documentary, his illustration of Genesis may seem to stand out as an
exception to his typical irreverent style. He claims to show the stories with
as little subjective interpretation as possible. However, this essay will argue
that Crumb’s Genesis is actually very similar to his typical work in its
purpose. Crumb recognized the inherent absurdity of Genesis and illustrated it
in an effort to reveal the perversion that is often overlooked.
Throughout the documentary of
Robert Crumb’s career, viewers hear from a number of people who have witnessed
the cartoonist’s growth as an artist. These sources provide a number of reasons
as to what inspires Crumb to depict people in his controversial style. One
contribution that Crumb himself offers is the LSD trip he took a number of
years before. This experience began Crumb’s uninhibited drawing of his dark
side. In these comics, he depicts the most grotesque of his own fantasies. This
was also his segue into drawing the seediest aspects of human nature in
general.
Art critic Robert Hughes relays that
Crumb’s work reflects a deep sense of human absurdity. Crumb himself expresses
his disgust at the portrayal of the typical consumer American family in the
1950s. The depiction of a happy family sitting around a table with no
acknowledgement of conflict or neuroses unsettles him. He examines this concept
satirically in a comic that shows father-daughter and mother-son sexual
relations. This is an example of the way in which Crumb seeks to draw attention
to how we take for granted the legitimacy of certain ideologies.
The same can be said for his
illustration of Genesis. Crumb recognized that the book was overflowing with
stories that, considered outside of the sacred text, would be labeled perverse.
However, the text is revered and its authority is taken for granted by many
people. Therefore, these accounts are accepted and not dwelled on as disgusting
or unnatural. Some examples of this in Genesis include Lot’s offering up of his
daughters to be raped, the same daughter’s seduction of Lot, and Abraham’s
willingness to kill his son. Many know these stories, but they are familiarized
so as to make them mundane.
This is the aspect of Genesis that
bridges the gap between the “straight illustration job” and his earlier work.
Both types of work have the same purpose. In his typical comics, Crumb observes
the ridiculousness that is inherent in our routines, beliefs, and assumptions.
He then cartoons them in a grotesque fashion so as to bring them to light. In
Genesis, he illustrated a sacred text extraordinarily close to the wording it
provided. By depicting it realistically, he actually accomplished the same goal
as his usual work. He draws attention to the human side of the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah, illustrating people lit on fire. This story is worded from the
perspective of God and Lot and therefore spends little time on the pain and
suffering of the city’s occupants. By simply showing what the few choice words
would mean for the people of Sodom and Gomorroh, pictured writhing in flames,
he puts the story under new skepticism.
Granted, drawing the effect of God’s
actions requires some interpretation, as the scene is not detailed out in the
text. In situations such as these, Crumb has made artistic decisions that
provide further insight into his motivation for illustrating Genesis. One of
the most telling is his portrayal of God. The depiction of God as a large being
with a long white beard in flowing robes is not stated in the Bible. The most
striking aspect of his portrait of God is His expression. Even while blessing
His creation, God maintains a stern and unforgiving expression. This look does
not communicate the loving God to which people sing songs of praise. The God in
Crumb’s Genesis is bent on restraining mankind’s potential and lording over His
creation. This is an avenue in which Crumb was left to interpret the book using
his own beliefs. He does not portray the God that is expected, but an almost
merciless Creator. He made this choice to display the deity he would expect to
allow or initiate the perverse accounts that make up Genesis. This choice also
sheds light on his motivation for drawing attention to the discrepancy between
the loving God many worship today and the stories they attribute to Him.
Crumb succeeds in revealing the
actual foundations of accepted ideologies in both his typical cartooning and
his illustration of Genesis. By following the text as closely as possible, he
took advantage of its innate ridiculousness. However, his subtle
interpretations provided intuition to how he feels about the text. Illustrating
a book of the Bible allowed him to apply his technique of pointing out the
absurd in a text that has been revered for thousands of years.
Sorry, this is a little late. Good essay. An interesting argument to make- the idea that he is disgusted by seemingly happy families because they outwardly show no conflict stood out- and how you turned that idea into him being disgusted by the seemingly nice Bible. Although, just in my experience, anyone who has ever actually read the book would know it has some dark stuff. Perhaps making it a comic makes it more palatable to people who don't read often- and also blatantly points out the dark stuff in case they don't get that. You also mention his depiction of God and how He is never described as such in the Bible. But this God is still depicted as the popular culture depicts him- perhaps you could expand on why that is, why he chose that depiction. Another place you could expand- when you talk about his earlier work you mention that it not only depicts the seediest parts of human nature but also his own personal seediest fantasies. Does any of that bleed into the Bible. Does he expand this 'straight job' of depicting the past to comment on current culture? Or perhaps does he sometimes insert his own dark thoughts into the illustration at anytime?
ReplyDeleteI like your intro. Is it possible, though, that the lack of irreverence might actually be an approximation of reverence? I don’t think the possibility should be dismissed, even if you are ultimately right. Your discussion of the film is compact and focused.
ReplyDelete“Both types of work have the same purpose. In his typical comics, Crumb observes the ridiculousness that is inherent in our routines, beliefs, and assumptions. He then cartoons them in a grotesque fashion so as to bring them to light. In Genesis, he illustrated a sacred text extraordinarily close to the wording it provided. By depicting it realistically, he actually accomplished the same goal as his usual work.” -- This is good. If you want to revise, I think it would be most effective to do more detailed work with his earlier work *and* in Genesis - to work through in a little more detail how his earlier satirical techniques have survived and transformed (maybe you’re basically just arguing that he has gotten subtler, but is doing the same thing?)
I think your description of Crumb’s interpretation of God is reasonable, but I’d like to see you flesh it out. In particular, I’d like to see you take it on at its most challenging moments - for instance, what if you focused on the scene of murder/humiliation which seemingly prompts God to flood the earth? I think that’s a scene that could work with your argument, but also poses interesting challenges to it (because the depravity being exposed here is *seemingly* human depravity).
Overall: This is smart and well-written, and makes good use of the film. It’s light on detail where Genesis is concerned, and thus ends up seeming a little speculative - the idea is good enough for a revision, but it would take lots of cutting and lots of expansion.