I am not saying that the community should have gotten Asher's art, just that, as a culture, they didn't. It wasn't a part of their culture they way that Aryeh's job was. The community did not see Aryeh's occupaton as being selfish, because he was striving to better the community, regardless of of personal cost to his family. They saw Asher's gift as a selfish preoccupation with foolishness, that did nothing but cause grief for his family and community.

I sort of identified with Asher's reactions to his father's job. My dad was in the Navy, and when I was 9, we were transferred overseas. Whatever my dad's job was (classified of course), it required to be away from us for a full month every other month. It was very wearing on my family. During this time, my mother's drinking became very bad and I did poorly in school. This went on for three years before we returned stateside, and my parents divorced a year later.

On one hand, you could say my dad was serving his country, regardless of the cost to his family. I know it tore him up every time he had to leave us. Was he being selfish then? I can't say he was. I can't say Aryeh is being selfish, because, even though Asher's point of view tells us Aryeh feels about travelling, he doesn't tell us how he feels about actually leaving his family.

I would say that Asher's choices are more selfish, because they seem to be more rooted in how he feels about doing something rather than he he perceives others will react to it. Although we can say that art makes the world a better place, that is not the reason Asher paints. Asher paints because he is driven to create. Any good, or bad, that comes of it is secondary.

But the way he feels about it isn't good. He's not saying "this feels good to me so I will do it." he's saying "this is what an Asher Lev does." It tears at him, possibly even more so than Aryeh's leaving tears at Aryeh.

The good or bad that comes with the painting, I don't think is measured by other people's reactions (edited to say- not reactions, but its affect on people. The work is created whether someone sees it or not). It's about telling the truth. Getting as close to the truth as possible and then representing that is good-which I think is what Asher's driven to. Flinching, obscuring, selling-out, "whoring" is bad- which is what he'd have had to do to exist as an artist and a member of the community.

A lot of Asher's conflict does come from recognizing that his father's work is important. All he's got to counter that importance with is "This is the truth as I see it, and I've always been taught that the truth is important."

Maybe Wolfram or someone can answer a question for me? How is it that such great composers as the Gershwins and Berlin came out of the Jewish (perhaps non-Hasidic?) community? Is it only the graphic arts that are not understood? What about writers?

Well first of all it's Asher Lev's (and perhaps Potok's) opinion that Hasidic (and possibly other) Jewry does not understand graphic art, which is certainly not something that everyone would agree with. But from my impression of the book's perspective on this, Asher needs to focus all his energies on producing great art. It follows that he cannot let any other pursuit occupy or distract him.

In traditional Hasidic communities, religion is not just an interest, it's a way of life. Members are expected to actively engage themselves in the practice and study of Judaism including, but not limited to, studying the Torah, Talmud, Halakha (Jewish law), Hashkafa (Jewish philosophy) etc., subject only to the necessities of making a livelihood to support themselves, their families, and other members of the community who might need it. Basically, all activities must be done in the ultimate service of G*d. As you can imagine, this requires great energy and focus as well.

Now many religions view artistic expression as a laudable way of giving honor and praise to G*d. Not so much in Hasidic Judaism, which focuses more on prayer and study. This is not to say that there isn't a concept of making synagogues and sacred objects beautiful in the service of G*d. But the focus isn't there. So Asher has the passion of art, combined with the zeal of religion, but no outlet in Hasidism to use it.

And this brings me to your question, Kim. It's not that art isn't understood in Hasidism. It's that there's really very limited outlets to express it. With regard to writing and music, there are many beautiful liturgical poems that have been written over the years with the focus on prayer. And there are many brilliant musical compositions by Hasidim that are used both by the Chazzan (cantor) during prayer services, and for Zemirot (songs on the sabbath). But NSM, with a focus on classical compositions.

Is it only the graphic arts that are not understood? What about writers?

I'm not Jewish, and my understanding in this area is limited. However, my understanding is that some do not believe that representational art, particularly of people, is allowed. I remember when I was in Israel as a child, the guide told us about the stained glass windows in the Knesset, and how were required to be abstract for this reason. There were a couple of points in the book where Potok mentioned that the Ladovers did not interpret this restriction in this way, that representational art was allowed. Do you think, Wolfram or others who might know more than I, that the more restrictive interpretation might impact people's views on representational art, even if just subconsciously?

It's an interesting question: If Asher's genius had shown in something practical/tangible--science or the like--would he have gotten more support?

I'm not Jewish, and my understanding in this area is limited. However, my understanding is that some do not believe that representational art, particularly of people, is allowed. I remember when I was in Israel as a child, the guide told us about the stained glass windows in the Knesset, and how were required to be abstract for this reason. There were a couple of points in the book where Potok mentioned that the Ladovers did not interpret this restriction in this way, that representational art was allowed. Do you think, Wolfram or others who might know more than I, that the more restrictive interpretation might impact people's views on representational art, even if just subconsciously?

I am Jewish, and you've stumped me. I know that there are a lot of observant Jews who won't have sculptures, or those who do, deface them in some minute way so they're incomplete to avoid transgression of the commandment against owning idols. But I've never heard that applied across the board to representational art. Do you remember where in the book they refer to this restriction?

It's an interesting question: If Asher's genius had shown in something practical/tangible--science or the like--would he have gotten more support?

I think so. The benefits of science are more tangible, and Asher's family and community could better relate to science and understand his passion.

If Asher's genius had shown in something practical/tangible--science or the like--would he have gotten more support?

Depends. I think the real issue, like Wolfram said, isn't that he had genius in it, but that he had passion in it. To Chasidice Jews, passion goes into honoring G-d. Everything else might be good, but it's not the focus of life. Like someone said in the book, it would have been fine if Asher became an artist who made kiddush cups or painted ketubahs or something like that. He could have probably made really beautiful ones.

I think it comes back to Asher's first conversation with Anna Schaeffer. She asks him what he believes, and get to, "I believe it's my duty to make the world holy." Art, the way he does it, does not make the world holy in the way that the Chasidim would interpret the word "holy."

If Asher had a passion for science the way that he had a passion for art, I think that his father probably would have understood more, but it still could have created problems. If he used the science to cure sick people or something like that, then that would be fine. If he used it in a way that went against the Ladover beliefs, then there would be a problem

I guess that where I keep coming back to, in thinking about this, is the phrase "For the sake of G-d." Aryeh enjoyed his work, definitely, but he was doing it for the sake of G-d -- to save lives, to save souls, to make the world a better place, to complete the work. Certainly, it was also something inside himself that was feeling this lack of completeness, but the work he was doing to fill that was work that was clearly done for the sake of G-d. With Asher, his art was for the sake of Asher, in a way. No life would be saved because of his art. It did not serve G-d in any way that made sense at all to a Ladover point of view. He was driven to complete it because he needed it done, and while this was the same force driving his parents, their work fit into what a Ladover should be doing, while his seemed to actively work against that.

Do you remember where in the book they refer to this restriction?

It was in one of his discussions with the Rebbe, maybe the one right before his bar mitzvah. (Which, I just realized, is never described at all.) The Rebbe says something like, "There are some who interpret the commandment this way, but we do not."

Going back to the original question, I think that the number of people who would interpret it that was is so small, and they're so not part of the Ladover community, that it wouldn't really make much of a difference to them. The Ladover community wouldn't really have much of a tradition of representational art, but I don't think that many people would, even subconsciously, have anything against it for that reason.

Ah, so it's a question of mis-directed passion, not mis-directed talent. That makes sense. If the Almighty is supposed to be the focus of your life, then giving that passion to something else is, to stretch a point, almost like adultery.