I like the picture that I copied from the Alice Neel catalogue with her and Allen Ginsberg, and Peter Orlavsky. I contrast that with the headline that I read today of protesters angry about that Swedish cartoonists depiction of Muhammad as a dog. He got head butted in the face at a lecture he was giving. I imagine crowds of inflamed gnashing burning bored souls funneling their own deep fear and disappointments about life at this man. This man made an image that could make palpable, and recognizable, a reason to be angry. “My God” they would be screaming, “how dare you insult my God. Burn in hell you savage” as they rip and tear at other human beings to get a chance to rip and tear at this man, until one gets through and gets the chance to damage him.
The Neel and Ginsberg image, to me, is of a certain kind of innocence that comes of those seeking purity, beauty, humanity, and insight into our existence (even if it’s mixed with some good ol’ fashioned ego).
I guess I draw no conclusion except that I know God does not want us fierce and damaging and so set in our ways that at any cost we ravage in his name. Those question marks are what brings us beyond ourselves and if we have our eyes looking towards what is good, what is good will draw us nearer. Well, okay, there's one more conclusion, we humans can all be really disappointing at times.
So to summarize:
Making fun of who people think God is via cartoons=disrespectful and not loving
Head butting someone=downright wrong
Making good poems and fantastic portraits=good for the world