Half a Century in the Study of Islamic Art

An essay on a presentation made by Oleg Grabar to Diwan al-Mimar on October 9, 2003.  -- continued --

Contemporary Creativity

The seventh and last direction Grabar described concerning the study of Islamic art is that of “contemporary creativity.”  Grabar mentioned that until the late seventies, he was “blissfully” ignorant of the existence of contemporary art in the Muslim world, except for occasional notices about activities in Beirut and Tehran.  He knew a little bit more on architecture, because of Hassan Fathy (3), who interested him at some point, but he still did not know much about contemporary architecture in the Muslim world.  Here, Grabar noted that this ignorance of his was not particular to the Muslim world, as he also knew very little about his own culture’s contemporary art.  Grabar added that all of this changed in the late seventies with his involvement in the Aga Khan Award for Architecture and the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he always will be grateful for that.  He began to discover architecture, architectural education, and then other arts as they are being carried out today.  Grabar added that he realized there is an extraordinary vitality in the contemporary artistic and architectural production of the Islamic world, and even though this production often initially has been brought out of western traditions, it often has taken on a very interesting life of its own. 

In this context, he mentioned the story of a contemporary Indonesian painter he has come across.  This painter studied in The Netherlands, where he learned about Abstract Expressionism and the techniques of contemporary painting, and painted accordingly.  He received a grant to go to New York during the 1960s.  When he went to New York, an exhibition of contemporary Japanese art was taking place.  He found at that exhibition how Japanese artists were doing contemporary art that is not Abstract Expressionism, and realized that they were drawing their inspiration from their own art.  He decided to do the same, and he went to the Islamic section at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to find out what Islamic art is, and came to the conclusion that Islamic art primarily is about writing.  He therefore dropped Abstract Expressionism, and spent considerable time and effort copying religious quotations and objects.  Grabar noted that this is not a unique phenomenon, and it is the responsibility of art historians to show how much there is to Islamic art as a source of inspiration for contemporary artistic production. 

Grabar added there are more important issues to consider when dealing with contemporary art.  One such issue is that of demarcating geographic and chronological boundaries for artistic production in the Islamic world.  He illustrated this point through a development that took place about twenty years ago, which is the publication of the 37-volume Dictionary of Art (London:  Macmillan Publishers, 1996), in which he was involved.  The editors decided that the arts in this publication would be categorized by nationality, i.e. French art, German art, Russian art, Chinese art, etc.  However, this categorization could not be carried out for the Muslim world, because most of the nations of the Islamic world did not exist before the twentieth century.  For instance, what would one do about Jordanian art in the seventeenth century?  The editors therefore decided to use a different system of taxonomization for Islamic art, separating it from national art except in the twentieth century and the pre-Islamic period.  Accordingly, in the case of Persia, there was Persian art under the title of Persia or Iran until the Islamic conquest, and then it is included under Islamic art until the twentieth century, when it goes back to Persian contemporary art.  In other words, as with the Turks who cut themselves off from their past by giving up the Arabic script, there was a break; a break was artificially created in those volumes.  Grabar added that perhaps this was not the most suitable approach to dealing with Islamic art, but he is not sure which approach would be more suitable. 

According to Grabar, whether there was or should be an Islamic dimension to arts coming out of the Muslim world is something that has two “tricky” corollaries.  The first is whether such an Islamic dimension restricts the study of Islamic art to Muslims.  If the answer is affirmative, then non-Muslims would not have the right to deal with Islamic art because it is a restricted endeavor.  The second corollary is whether principles and ideas identifiable as Islamic in the past, such as calligraphy and geometry, should remain dominant today.  Grabar added that one may assert an evolution by which one even may have a “non-Islamic” Islamic art, which is logical in countries that primarily have Muslim populations.  Thus, in spite of what generally is written, one may consider Coptic art as the Christian art of Islamic Egypt.  Also, some Jewish manuscripts of the Middle Ages are very "Islamic" in appearance.  This would apply if one sees Islamic art as primarily a feature of Islamic culture.  However, if one sees Islamic art as primarily an artistic expression, then its “archaeological” component of being Islamic becomes secondary to traditional issues of art history, such as form, composition, arrangement techniques, etc. 

Here, Grabar noted that he is not quite sure as to what one should do in this regard.  He believes this is a problem for the younger generation of art historians in the Muslim world to resolve.  One should ask himself or herself whether it is important to maintain the difference between what may be referred to as Islamic art and other categories of art, and if so would create contemporary differences that distinguish what may be referred to as Islamic art.  If it is art that matters, the fact that it is Islamic or non-Islamic becomes of no significance.  What becomes significant is whether the art is good or bad, usable or unusable, expensive or cheap, etc.  According to Grabar, it is interesting to note that today’s contemporary concerns regarding art history are parallel to concerns affecting other fields like philosophy and the history of science, where a Muslim domination in the Middle Ages led, and is still leading, to studies that seek to locate Muslim contributions within philosophy and science in general.  Grabar added there have been some recent interesting developments regarding the study of Islamic art history.  In such cases, one tries to find something that is unique or peculiar about a tradition, and may decide to declare it Islamic or may not, but the fact that it is Islamic is secondary.  In this context, Grabar mentioned the recent work of Jose Miguel Puertas Vilchez, Historia del Pensiamento Estetico Arabe (Madrid:  Akal, 1997), which he considers a truly major work.  Also in this context, Abdelwahab Meddeb, a Tunisian living in France, has written excellent works such as Islam and its Discontents (London:  William Heinemann, 2003).  Another figure is Maroun Aouad, a Lebanese living in France, who has written more scholarly and less poetical works than Meddeb, including Commentaire moyen a la Rhetorique d'Aristote (Paris:  Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 2002).  There also are important scholars from outside the realm of art history such as Mohammad Arkoun (4), whose thoughts vary from time to time, and ‘Abd al-Hamid Sabra (5), although he tends to avoid great theories. 

Grabar concluded his presentation by mentioning that he does not know how to answer the questions relating to the issue of whether it is important to maintain the difference of Islamic art from other arts.  This is the moment when he is giving up attempts at answering such questions, and believes the task should be left for a new generation.