by Pr. Rav Yehoshua Rahamim Dufour modia.org

Image may be subject to copyright. Go to the artists on Google

We propose to examine his work in relation to the characteristics of the masters of Israeli art. Israeli pictorial culture is barely a century old but, like other aspects of Israeli culture, it quickly won its international stripes.

Suffrin's work in the context of Israeli artistic trends:
1. The first generation of great Israeli painters expressed their wonder at the Land of Israel. The paintings of Anna Ticho (1894-1980)

delicately express an almost maternal relationship with the land and with the sloping contours of the Judean hills. The shading and the lines of her paintings are light, like soft Renaissance music or a mother’s caress towards her baby, and are often rendered in watercolor. This dimension of the pioneers is not found in Suffrin’s work.

We see it, rather, in the plethora of prints and pastels, sometimes of quality, that are produced for tourists. These paintings illustrate in expressionistic style the spiritual encounter with the land of Israel and the orgasmic joy of having personally experienced what generations of Jews prayed for.
We find this dimension in the work of Leopold Krakauer (1890-0954), which is very graphic in style,

and in the work of Batia Grossbard (1910-1995)

In contrast, Suffrin expresses this emotion with the force of a peasant who was born in this land and has a direct connection with it. His various paintings with religious themes, such as the painting of the grandfather and grandson studying in the light of the Torah, reflect, in their lines and colors, the power of Judaism,

which is portrayed not only from the exterior, but is presented within the very depths of the figures, and also poses questions unlike many contemporary religious or decorative paintings. Draughtsmanship is also important in Suffrin’s work, but it is primarily through the contrast of colors that the conflicts of coexistence are portrayed.

2. Other great artistic Israeli pioneers, such as Yohanan Simon (1905-1976),

expressed in their paintings, their ecstatic enthusiasm (like the Chinese of Mao’s time) for the flowering of houses and life that emerged at this time in the kibbutzim, the collective production communities which were governed by the strictest socialist rules. At times, Simon’s paintings have the softness of a Persian miniature, at others, the brutal force of a Rouault.

This was a mystical, collective period, but when economic evolution transformed these communities, the painters, who had maintained their mysticism, transferred their attention to Jewish holy sites such as Tzfat (Safed), Jerusalem or Hebron. Others, such as Moshe Mokady (1902-1975), continued the French naïve tradition

and Mokady still has many imitators and followers in the Israeli art scene.
Suffrin’s paintings are out of step with this trend, for they do not make a political statement. Instead, they express the dilemma of human existence, even when they portray the collective problems of current society. In particular, they touch the observer emotionally (like the painting of a large group of rabbis facing a young child)

and the artistic force that emerges from the composition gives expression to the primary dilemma: how can each individual find his place in this world, will the child be able to fulfill himself in this world? No certainties or solutions are offered. It is the sensibility of the spectator that is moved.

Suffrin depicts the dilemma but does not intensify the realism or symbolism of his expressionism, as did Mordechai Levanon (1901-1968) in his paintings of Tzfat, which try to make convincing the mystical trance they portray.

On the other hand, one feels that Suffrin has understood and integrated the sincerity of the works of pioneers such as Reuven Rubin (1893-1974) whose technique bordered on the naïve.

Rubin did not do this for effect, but out of integrity and, to this end, he used techniques which were popular with many famous painters of the Paris School.

3. Then came the generation that was known as the Canaanite School, whish rebelled against traditional Jewish identity, favoring instead the animist dimensions of the ancient Canaanite world and creating a political fusion of art and nature. That was part of a cultural philosophy and ideology that led to terrible results in others countries. Yitzhak Danziger (1916-1977) was the brilliant leader of this esoteric movement in Judaism.

This was the period when it was fashionable for artistic and political revolutionaries to name their children Nimrod, the brutal enemy of mankind and proponent of the cult of power. It was like naming one’s child Hitler and it marked a return to the “primitive character” of animist gods.

This dimension also does not appear in Suffrin’s current paintings, although an element may be found in the surrealistic compositions of his early works which depict a world where children are submerged by images of destructive outer space robots who fight against humans and supra-terrestrial beings.

But, in contrast to conventional outer-space literature, there is a tenderness in some of his figures who appear disguised as Martians but are not so and who do not seem able to erase their sensitivity or gentleness. This is what characterizes Suffrin: he depicts the dilemma of the times, not through ideological simplifications, but as a witness to the battle between light and darkness in a human destiny, where the human must emerge the victor. In his work, art, through its power, reveals both possible horror as well as the cosmic immensity of childhood and love.

4. A new wave of great painters, on a par with the great European artists, then arrived in Israel. Instead of expressing ideological questions regarding the land, they chose to focus strictly on art and called their movement New Horizon. The paintings of these masters, (among them Avigdor Stematsky 1908-1989

...and Yehezkel Streichman 1900-1993), a leading figure in the abstract-lyric group,


reflect the celebrated techniques of the School of Paris.
One sees a direct line from French cubism to Aharon Kahana (1908-1967).

But instead of great creativity, one finds a flock of painters who are identical to each other and one wonders how any of them came to be considered leaders of new schools of art by critics and art dealers. This does not detract from the talent of many of these painters but, as in music, at every period fifty false creators fall into the trap of the “flock.” They do so with great artistic technique and this is enough for them. It is hard to find individual talent among these skilled technicians and not fall for the conventional modes they express. One is often irritated to see in their work the techniques of Rousseau, Soutine, Dubuffet, Rouault and Picasso. However, one should cite the names of many talented Israeli painters such as Tziona Tager (1900-1988), Arie Aroch (1908-1974)

and Haim Gliksberg (1904-1970)
who successfully traversed these artistic cyclones.

In contrast, we see in Suffrin’s paintings, a mastery of artistic techniques that demand a great amount of work in order to preserve a note of simplicity and originality. Nor is his work limited to one technique or to one school which is copied and recopied. Suffrin’s work is perhaps most closely affiliated to Joseph Zaritsky (1891-1985), in the latter’s ability not to be enclosed in one technical mold but to evolve according to the reaction of the painter to the model or a scene, letting the message impose itself and find, by itself, the appropriate technique.

The best example of this is Zaritsky’s View From the Roof, which was produced in at least four versions over 10 years, none of which repeated the atmosphere or the techniques used previously: an artist is a living being, as is his work, and it is a reflection of life.

The same can be seen in the very personal, multi-styled, unclassifiable work of Nahum Gutman (1898-1978).

Now, we can breathe; we feel that the painting respects us for we do not blindly follow the herd, the "tson" of the psalms of King David. Suffrin’s paintings are like those of other great painters who integrated or used well-known techniques but in a personal, primordial manner,

painters such as Lilian Klapisch (1933-)



who does not depict intimacy,
but suggests it and always succeeds in communicating it,

or Ori Reisman (1924-1991)



who communicates personal strength through the power of his colors, and through simple curves and soft shadings,

as Suffrin does often,

or Michael Gross (1920-) whose large, mono-colored surfaces are interlaid with a soft, discreet detail that creates tension and individuality within the uniform world which is our contemporary, concentration-type world.

In a similar way, Suffrin’s painting of a young woman undergoing cosmetic work or his painting of a baby and children in the grip of fashion modes, communicates a different, unexpected element which poses a deep, physical, visual question for the observer.

Like Moshe Kupferman’s paintings (1926),

Suffrin’s work makes us confront the uniform world which kills the emergence of the individual pearl, and which shackles the bud (nitsan, in Hebrew), making it difficult for it to bloom. Suffrin does not use simplistic techniques that insult the observer, but opts for a multiplicity of nuances

One cannot escape the fundamental question posed by these two painters.

In contrast, looking at the magnificent, varied paintings of Avigdor Arikha (1929),



one regrets that he respects us too much and does not dare pose the fundamental question which he suggests and which he hesitates to depict as a painter and to reveal to us.

Suffrin does not spare us this and does not seem to spare himself.

5. In this respect, his work is typically Jewish. It is the work of someone who cannot get out of an insolvable situation: the realism-idealism-being who participates in the mass group as a different being, does not hide-remains discreet-accepts to live with that which he has revealed and face the consequences.

This is why his paintings are different from those of the painters who are admired in Israel and are considered trend setters, and who depict a problem without ambiguity, not in existential or artistic terms, but as a political slogan, like Larry Abramson.

6. Suffrin does not ignore the world of the poster which, for instance, is present in the work of Yigal Tumarkin (1933-)

Suffrin often places us before a scene where one cannot tell whether it involves a real person, a reflection in a mirror, a poster, a dream or all these together, and why.
As we stand in front of one of his paintings, the problem, which we note but do not understand, seems to penetrate us like a the spiral of a corkscrew, leading us in different directions: we are no longer in control and, so, we can renew ourselves.

In Suffrin’s work, the poster is not cold; it touches us through its tenderness, that is, unless it is our tenderness that it attacks. The vital, existential problem which is at the center of the painting is very strong because it is not presented explicitly.
Suffrin does not use Moshe Gershuni’s (1936-) technique of placing streamers of letters or texts in a painting, which simplify the impact, like slogans waved by participants at political meetings where everything is made black and white.

In Suffrin’s work, the image becomes probing precisely because it is multi-dimensional. Suffrin never slips into graphic expressionism or sensationalism.

He chose spontaneously to preserve the polyvalence of the symbol of painting and art, in contrast to painters of political revolutions or to painters such often as David Reeb (1952-).

7. In short, Suffrin’s work communicates a teaching that can be placed in the context of the history of Israeli painting, and its links to European painting.

To all the masters who preceded him, he gives the best possible, most respectful and most affectionate tribute (as towards one’s parents): thanks to their heritage, the young creator who is part of a new generation, shows them that he is capable of integrating their influence and depicting it in a true, original way: remaining himself.
To quote the Song of Songs, the time has now come when the bud appears, blooms and becomes a zamir, a song.

As for the person who has the privilege of owing a Suffrin painting, as seen in the many letters from around the world which were published in the catalogue of his last exhibition, every time he gazes at the painting, he discovers vital, non-simplistic questions, remains calm, listens, deepens, becomes, and feels joy – the joy shared between the artist and the friend who received the painting. This takes place amid beauty, and one discovers that this beauty is both external and internal, and that it questions.

This is the secret and the art of great painters whose works survive through the centuries: these works pose a question to each observer and make him become more himself and a better person. No painter can pay a greater tribute to the masters who created him. And, in his turn, the painter becomes the friend and father of countless people who suddenly see, feel, listen, discover and love their own lives.
Happy are those who know how to transmit this from generation to generation.

The originality of Roee Yosef Suffrin derives from several factors:

- While many Israeli painters of the new generation feel they are a uniquely local product of a brilliant, revolutionary school, it should be acknowledged that they, like Suffrin, are a product of a movement that can be seen all over the Western world. Nonetheless, Suffrin succeeds in maintaining his freedom in the face of the various pictorial schools whose ideological teaching and technique he has skillfully integrated.

- Suffrin’s pictorial work is representative of Israel today for is stands at the inextricable junction of the same dilemmas that confront a diverse Israeli society which is unique in its complexity: the whirl of large shopping areas where citizens transformed into consumers wander around, lapping up the new culture; the whirl of the world of fashion and media; the high-powered workplace which has created an new form of slavery; the whirl of religious trends and pressures; the whirl of the local cultures of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem which may feel they are free but may also represent other local ghettos where everyone resembles one another; the massive whirl of pressure on those who are the most creative; women and children.

- a veritable dual takes place in each of Suffrin’s paintings between a strong but as yet unknown creativity and powerful, all-confident, forces which wish to dominate. But he does not desert either. This is what creates the tension in his work. It questions and provokes the observer.

Suffrin is uniquely successful in the way he applies the same probing questioning to all domains, values, certainties and uncertainties, and does not fall into a divided cultural or pictorial society.

Suffrin wages, in all directions, a battle which is analogous to that of Rostam in Shanamé – the Book of Kings by Ferdowsi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqHIIYnta7k): to discover and show with force, love and beauty the human hero in all forms of existence and society. One can certainly love.

We can, of course, prefer certain of his paintings, which depict particular aspects of the Israeli entity or which focus on particular pictorial forms, or we can obviously understand from an another point of vue his workings, but we hope that Suffrin will not cede to such pressures and will continue to preserve multiplicity, tension and individuality: his and ours. His ability and maturity in this unique choice seem to be assured.