This painting by Marc Chagall, born in present-day Belarus in 1887, was created in Paris in 1913. “The Fiddler” aims to represent Chagall’s desire to return to shtetl life that he grew up in. Viewers of this work can tell that this shtetl is diverse with Jews and Christians living side by side. We know this because of the church directly to the right of the fiddler and another in the top left area of the painting. Chagall depicts the fiddler as larger than life: he towers above all the other buildings within the painting. Perhaps, he stands apart from the rest of the scene to show the internalization of emotions as a member of a small faction within his community. As a member of the minority, Chagall could have wanted others to see how proud he was of his lively Jewish culture. The catharsis of feeling that occurs from the fiddle playing could include traditional Jewish folk songs. While fiddling away, he stands with one foot on the roof of a house to reveal to his neighbors that he is an active participant in the secular Jewish culture. However, his other foot is placed on the ground which shows viewers that he is accepting of the other cultures that play an important role in his community.

Further, the fiddler’s face seems jolly as he maintains a smile on his face. However, his complexion is a deep shade of green. I believe that this hue represents a sense of uneasiness or discomfort. We generally place a negative connotation when referring to this color ‘on someone’s skin.’ The fiddler may have a content look on his face since he is playing the fiddle- something familiar to him that is associated with his tradition. On the other hand, his green complexion signifies his current situation; he feels as if he cannot stand out because he is a Jew. This confusion brings up some important questions about the fiddler’s relationship to modernity. Does he want to fall back upon his tradition? Does he want to join the rest of his society and ‘come down from his roof’? The fiddler’s green face allows viewers to understand the distance he feels from the rest of his community.

In the top of this work, we see a small person wearing gold above the mountains. I believe that this figure represents an angel, watching over the fiddler. This is justified by this figure’s ability to float above the mountains, a landscape that is normally too high to overcome just by standing. Additionally, the figure is dressed in gold; this color often represents a holy figure or being. The function of the angel in this painting is to serve as protection for the fiddler. As the fiddler may struggle with his current place in the world, the holy being will assure comfort for this man. Chagall’s use of symbolism in this work represents the widely-recognized tension of self-consciousness that is found in modernism. He makes viewers question what their own emotions would be if they found themselves in this situation as well.

Oil on canvas, from the Stediljk Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Picture found here: http://www.artandcointv.com/blog/2012/11/marc-chagall-an-undefinable-force/

Marc Chagall: 1887-1985

Created in France, currently stands in Musée national Message Biblique Marc Chagall, Nice, France

In this piece, Chagall has many different images literally floating around on the canvas. We see the goat floating near a tree, and the betrothed couple on a chicken. It is full of imagery, the chicken/rooster symbolizes fertility, the fiddler symbolizes the fiddler who played at Jewish weddings in Chagall’s village.The interesting part to me is the Eiffel Tower in the background. We discussed how Chagall didn’t necessarily see Jewishness and non-religious aspects of his life as that separate, and here we see a very clear merging of the two. There is Jewish immagery in the angel near the sun, and perhaps in the young man reading a book near the trees. However, the main Jewish imagery is the chuppah which stands behind the couple underneath the very non-religious icon of the Eiffel Tower. This piece of architecture is famous and clearly has a strong meaning for Chagall, as it shows up repeatedly in his other works. Pairing this symbol of the “city of love” with the Jewish symbol of love and marriage creates an interesting juxtaposition. He also has at least parts of violins in the painting, a way of blending different media (like we saw in the Picasso painting, music and writing is temporal, art is less so).

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/marc-chagall/over-the-town-1918#supersized-artistPaintings-203129

“Solitude” painted by Marc Chagall (b. 1887, Liozna, Russian Empire (present-day Belarus) – 1985, Saint-Paul-de-Vence, France) captures the feelings of many European Jews during the inter-war period.  On the left, a man sits covered in a prayer shawl, holding a Torah in his left arm.  His right hand rests on his chin as he looks with despair at the ground.  The man seems to not acknowledge his surroundings.  To his right sits a goat with a violin.  An angel floats above the goat in the sky.  In the background there are images of a town and possibly a church on the right (signified by three pointed towers).  This painting seems to be Chagall’s reflection of the world in which he lived.  At the time of the painting’s completion, anti-Semitic discourse existed throughout European society.  In line with Wagner’s view, many thought that Jews could not be artists because they lacked a national identity. Does Chagall represent this idea with the goat holding the violin?  Does he mock the idea that Jews are so despised that they cannot create art, yet animals can?  Or, does the goat represent the shtetl life of the Jews, which was diminishing with the rise of anti-Semitism and increase of urbanization.  Significantly, the man, assumed as a Jew because of his garb, clings to the Torah.  Although he may foresee a dark future for Jews, he knows that the language and texts of the Jewish people will continue to unite them.  The town and the angel are interesting images as well.  Does the man’s location outside the town convey that Jews were not welcome in many European cities at the time?  Does the Jew want to be in the town or in the country with his Torah and goat (possibly signifying shtetl life)?  Is the angel flying to the town, ignoring the Jew?  Or vice versa, is she leaving the town to watch over the Jew and bring him eternal hope?   This piece is extremely intriguing to me because of all of these questions.  Clearly, Chagall explores the Jew’s place in society in this painting, but I am curious as to where Chagall thinks the Jew belongs.

http://www.tamuseum.org.il/collection-work/3413

Oil on canvas, from the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Tel Aviv, Israel.

This painting by Marc Chagall (b.1887, Belarus, Russia-1985, Saint-Paul de Vence, France) highlights the Modern theme of the dichotomy between inwards reflection and outwards interaction. The distorted, fragmented body of the soldier is indicative of his violent occupation, which not only ruins others, but also himself. This abstraction also represents the fragmented world after the First World War, an obviously harrowing experience (for it shattered his body). His right hand points towards the window, a reflection of the outside world, yet his body is entirely turned away. Could this indicate a removal of the soldier from his past, one filled with wars and violence? The quizzical look on his face occurs as an almost judgment of the world past the window, perhaps showing his analyses and opinion of the world from which he appears to remove himself (even if it’s simply for a drink). The hovering cap reveals the top of his head in an attempt to allow us into the soldier’s thoughts. Instead of being outside in the world, the soldier remains indoors and drinks (what, we do not know) out of a glass one-third the size of his hand. The dichotomy the soldier displays, of remaining indoors but acknowledging the village beyond the window, also represents the Modernist struggle between oneself and the outside world.

http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/801

Gouache on paper, Guggenheim Museum Online Collection

Many Jews and non-Jews alike know the story of Tevya and “The Fiddler on the Roof.” What many do not know is that the title of the Broadway play was influenced by one of Marc Chagall’s paintings (Ben-Shalom). In “The Fiddler,” Chagall (b. 1887, Liozna, Russian Empire – 1985, Saint-Paul-de-Vence, France) portrays a rather large man standing on top of a roof playing the violin.  The man is the main subject of the painting, with a background of both the shtetl and 2 different Churches. Chagall is able to show what life looked like while living under the Russian empire; he is showing his memories from his childhood. Although, why is the fiddler’s face green? And why is his facial expression so distorted and misshapen? Could his expression resemble the way he felt while living in Russia? And why to the right of the fiddler are there three heads watching, although one body? Additionally, there are shoe prints leading up to the top right hand corner house, and leaving from either the Church or the house next to it. Is this showing that Chagall is leaving his religion and his family as he leaves Russia?

Ben-Shalom, Miri. “All About Jewish Theatre – Kaleidoscope with Stewart Lane Speaking to Miri Ben-Shalom on His Fiddler on the Roof Production.” All About Jewish Theatre – Kaleidoscope with Stewart Lane Speaking to Miri Ben-Shalom on His Fiddler on the Roof Production. N.p., n.d.

http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/artwork/753-le-violoniste

Oil on canvas, from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Marc Chagall (1887-1985, Vitebsk, Belarus, Saint-Paul de Vence, France) expresses various aspects of Judaism in his painting The Falling Angel created between the years of 1923-1947. At the bottom left of the painting he incorporates a bearded Jewish man with a hat holding onto a Torah scroll whose scribbled words are illegible. Though the words are not readable, it is still a modern concept to combine language and literature into paintings. Interestingly, he is looking back toward the angel falling, along with Jesus’ “falling” or death. It seems as if he’s trying to distance himself from those events. Perhaps he’s fleeing from the torment and destruction that is going on. This could be representative of Jewish life at that time or in the shtetl. The Jews could have fallen on hard times, and he just wants to run away from the all-encompassing bad life. To the right is a woman holding a baby in her arms, which is somewhat reminiscent of Yocheved holding Moshe as a baby, or perhaps Madonna and baby Jesus. Beside that there is a candlestick, which looks very much like Shabbos candlesticks. What’s interesting to note is the size of the candlestick in relation to the surrounding environment. Typically in paintings size and location are key elements in signifying power and a focal point. The hieratic scale can be implemented here with the candlestick to perhaps show that the flame was still burning for Judaism, and Judaism will withstand the anti-Semitic sentiments of the time.

One of the most taking sights in this painting is of Jesus’ crucifixion. It seems like he’s wearing a tallit as he was in another Chagall painting, a sign that could be taken two ways. One way in which to address that is it’s derogatory toward Jews, almost as if crucifying them along with their religion. However, it could also be seen as Chagall relating his artwork through his own religion. He could feel very connected to his Judaism, and desires to express various times in the Jews’ lives as a nation. The red circle behind Jesus’ head can be viewed as a halo. Jesus’ crucifixion scene is larger than the buildings below him, an implication of the hieratic scale. Perhaps the small town, or shtetl, is just a background for all of the scenes depicted; it’s a place for the story to unravel. This story seems to be various points in history, perhaps Jewish history. The grandfather clock in the top of the painting could be a literal sign for time. The man above the Jew has a sickly green skin, which, as we noted in class, could be seen as greed or an illness. It’s more likely to be a sickness because this painting seems to depict hard times, and he’s bent in half, holding a cane.

There’s a goat at the bottom of the painting, something that seems to pop up a lot in Chagall’s work. This could relate to small towns or villages, kind of like The Fiddler on the Roof because of the goat and the violin. This could be representative of shtetl life. The main focus of this painting would be the falling angel. The angel is a very vibrant red, which helps attract the eye, and the domineering size attests to importance. We typically don’t think of angels falling from Heaven, but this could be a symbol of wrongdoing, or bad things to come. This could be a bad sign of Jewish life, and how anti-Semitism negatively reflected on the Jews.

Marc Chagall (Vitebsk 1887–1985 Saint-Paul-de-Vence) captures a scene of Paris in this painting that exudes modernization.  The co-subject of the title, the Pont de Passy (the bridge), can be seen in the background, carrying on it a newly constructed train in the direction of the other co-subject of the title, the Eiffel tower. These three new metal additions to the city of Paris are all placed in the upper half of the painting, and can be read as symbols for growing urbanization and technology. In short, they represent the “new.” On the other hand, the bottom of the painting is occupied by “old,” even ancient objects: a horse, a dirt road, plants, and a brick wall. Chagall masterfully juxtaposes the “old” and “new” here, not only through their placement in the frame, but by their color scheme: the old section is dominated by warm colors; the new is cool colors. At first glance, it seems these two spheres are irreconcilable. However, Chagall forces our eyes toward the Eiffel tower by placing every line in its direction. Over the tower, he places the word “union.” Much like he does later in , Chagall blurs the line between painting and text, conveying a message through language, but treating the language as an object to be visually consumed, and placing it over an image of Paris’ most iconic object. “Union” speaks to the union of the old and the new in a single city. For Chagall, though Paris is modernizing, it still retains its timeless quality.

I do believe there is possibly another, more subtle message Chagall may be conveying here. Does the brick wall, with its large stones, hark back to the Western Wall? Perhaps Chagall, who often represented Jews as animals in line with negative stereotypes, places the horse respectfully toward the wall, with blinders on, in order to comment on Jews’ adherence to tradition, and therefore distinctiveness in a society that praises “union” above all else.

This painting by Marc Chagall (b.1887, Belarus, Russia-1985, Saint-Paul de Vence, France), as do many of his paintings, illustrates the internal battle that affected many Jews during the Modern era. Both the process and the eventual outcome present vast unknowns to those experiencing them. In the painting, the traditional Jewish life is contrasted with the changes occurring in the larger community. The proportions of the painting are interesting to note. The fiddler comprises most of the image, and is disproportionately large in comparison to his surroundings. Furthermore, the fiddler has one foot on the root of the house and one on the ground, something that is physically impossible. The foot on the house potentially represents a deep connection to the home, as well traditional Jewish life. The foot on the ground potentially represents the struggle to integrate into the larger community. The importance of a religious grounding is further emphasized by the present of a church, on the right side of the painting. Other aspects of the painting include, a man flying above, who may symbolize freedom, and three figures on the left side of the painting, which may represent familial life. The painting wonderfully illustrates the internal struggle between remaining true to one’s religious and cultural roots in the midst of change.

http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/marc-chagall/the-fiddler-1913

Oil on canvas, from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands

In La Mariée, The Bride, Marc Chagall (b.1887, Belarus, Russia-1985, Saint-Paul de Vence, France) fused together reality and the imaginable. This post-WWII image also demonstrate symbols of Yiddish culture. The goat playing the violoncello represents familiar figures and instruments in Jewish folklore. It is apparent that Chagall’s paintings are composed of reoccurring themes and repeating symbols. To the left of the goat we see a bride in a red dress and a man with his arms wrapped around her. It seems a bit odd to me that the dress is red rather than the traditional white. Due to the fact that Chagall painted this picture in the 1950′s it is possible that he wanted to emphasize the importance of marriage at this time, or rather that it was more of an afterthought. Between the years of 1946-1964 the population experienced a dramatic increase. The red in the bride’s dress can represent happiness and seductiveness. The background of the picture is filled with a dark blue which can represent gloominess and evoke deep emotion. This contrast may be a result of the ups and downs of society at this time. Many people at this time were still experiencing feelings of depression as a result of the war, but others were in high hopes for a bright future. I also found it interesting that Chagall painted a fish suspended in the air in the top right corner. In Judaism, fish are usually a sign of fertility and prosperity. This could be Chagall’s way of expressing his own aspirations and goals for the Jewish people and their integration into society.

http://www.frameitinbrooklyn.com/marc-chagall-la-mariee-framed-canvas-museum-replica-32x-26-ready-to-hang/

Framed Canvas, Frame it in Brooklyn

This assignment had a “putting a face to the name” kind of effect for me. It enabled me to visualize historical landmarks as well as poignant moments in the novel that depicted urban space. There are certain places, such as The Metropolitan Museum Museum of Art and Brownsville, that stand out to me because they are either significant locations in David’s life or well known places that most people have heard of. However, I found it quite intriguing that smaller urban spaces, like the traife butcher, were highlighted in certain posts. Although it may not be a place that has directly impacted David’s life, it is notable in that it gives us a portrayal of what urbanized life in NYC.

Places like Ellis Island, on the other hand, are treasured trademarks of New York City. I particularly love the line, “The small white steamer, Peter Stuyvesant, that delivered the immigrants from the stench and throb of the steerage to the stench and throb of New York tenements” (9). This accentuates the idea that even though New York was a considered the city of dreams for most immigrants, the struggles of urban life were equally as arduous as having to stay in the poorest part of a ship.