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 --

Another questioner inquired about the “seven strands” relating to the study of Islamic art that Grabar mentioned in his presentation: Orientalism, archaeology, collecting, history of art, history of architecture, the social sciences, and contemporary creativity.  The questioner mentioned that for most of these strands he may think of very specific conditions whether anecdotal, theoretical, or others that apply to the Islamic world.  However, he could not think of special conditions that would link the social sciences to the Islamic world.  He added that in his presentation Grabar talked about the fascinating way in which one can study history of art or history of architecture through anthropological, psychological, or gender models.  The questioner wondered whether there is anything unique about the study of Islamic art using such models.  In other words, he asked as to what connects Islamic art and architecture to these fields in the social sciences. 

Grabar responded that on the one hand, he may state that Islamic art is art, and the fact that he has looked into the effects of social sciences on Islamic art is just an “accident,” because he happened to deal with Islamic art and he could have dealt with some other kind of art.  In other words, whatever the art is, it may be analyzed as a product, as a structure, as pleasure, etc.  On the other hand, Grabar added that one could say there are directions that exist in the Islamic world around which one could develop a kind of “Islamic social science” of the arts.  One of these directions is related to poetry and the poetic.  There is a mysticism that exists and that sees ambiguities, emphasizes ambiguities, and recognizes contradictions.  This matter is more obvious to Grabar in Persian culture than it is in Arab culture.  It is very obvious in the Zahir-batin (exoteric-esoteric) concept of mysticism.  Grabar added that the Persian traveler and poet Nasir-i Khusraw (d. c. 1078) wrote interesting things in this regard, and is known for an extensive use of symbolism and polarities of meaning.  Based on the zahir-batin concept, one would for instance accept and acknowledge that there are ways in which certain forms of the French painter Henri-Emile-Benoit Matisse (1869 – 1954) can have two simultaneously dissimilar meanings.  Grabar added that Vitruvius (active 46 – 30 BC) and Leon Battista Alberti (1404 – 1472), as well as other Western theoreticians of architecture would go against this polarity of meaning.  However, Wassili Kandinsky (1866 – 1944), who played a very important role in the development of abstract art, or someone of similar thought, may already have possibilities for this approach of thinking, which also is a very modern one.   

Thus, Grabar argued that the Muslim tradition represented in mysticism was a very early tradition that makes Islamic art very contemporary.  The issue here is the one Arkoun has argued so often, which is that you cannot most of the time use the past to deal with the present without becoming "retardataire" and being left behind modern culture.  On the contrary, one may say it is precisely in Islamic art that this possibility of assigning multiple meanings to the same forms was developed, without having a group of priests telling the viewer what to think, i.e. without having an obligatory system by which to interpret those forms, but by providing each individual with the freedom to decide how to see art. 

Grabar believes there is an interesting possibility in the issue of polarity of meanings.  However, he is not sure whether any writings of that kind had existed in the medieval period.  He mentioned that the writings on aesthetics of which he is aware do not deal with the topic of assigning multiple meanings to a certain form.  However, the new Spanish-language book by Vilchez (mentioned above) on the aesthetic philosophy of the Arabs might be of relevance.  Grabar added that, for example, there are several ways to interpret the image of an object.  Thus, one can say the central part of a design is the black or the central part of the design is the white, and one can interpret it either way.  The artist does not tell the receiver of the work which one is the right way, and the receiver has the write to make a choice.  According to Grabar, of all the major artistic traditions only Islamic art provides such freedom, and that could be exploited.  Grabar believes that this freedom is not due to religious reasons. 

An audience member commented that when Western architecture is discussed it is almost never termed "Christian."  Instead, it is referred to as Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, etc.  It is dealt with as an encompassing architectural tradition that includes various chronological periods and differing formal characteristics.  The “packaging” of Western architecture as "Christian" is weak.  This audience member wondered why architecture in the Muslim world, which also belongs to different periods of history, should be seen within the generalized term “Islamic architecture” instead of being referred to as Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamluk, etc.   

Grabar mostly agreed with this view.  He believes the use of the generalized term “Islamic architecture” is related to the manner people in the West (where the terms Islamic art and Islamic architecture were coined) are educated.  He mentioned that one develops his or her knowledge regarding most cultures in high school, and that knowledge regarding Islamic culture is extremely weak and general in the consciousness of Westerners.  Therefore, most people in the West do not know, for example, the difference between Mamluk and Ayyubid.  Grabar mentioned that the culture of Westerners should stop people from being satisfied with the simply generalized term “Islamic architecture.”  They should start questioning to what era a certain work of architecture belongs:  Is it Mamluk architecture, Ottoman architecture, etc.?   This, according to Grabar, requires a culture that makes people aware of the existence of such different eras, just as the differences between Romanesque and Gothic have become significant to Westerners.   Here, the questioner commented that the term “Islamic architecture” seems a product of the Western world seeing the Islamic world from a distance, a position with which Grabar agrees. 

The last questioner asked Grabar what he would think of dividing the architecture of the Muslim world regionally.  Grabar responded that the regional division of architecture in the Muslim world might provide a reasonable replacement for the term “Islamic architecture.”  Here, one would need to decide on regional boundaries and to discuss each regional entity at different chronological points of its evolution.  Grabar added that the problem that often would arise would be deciding on the borders of the various regional units.  Although it is easy to decide on Egypt, for example, as being one regional unit, it might be more difficult to deal with Syria or Jordan, which historically belonged to Bilad al-Sham, but did not exist as individual entities until the creation of these states in the modern period.  Establishing such a new system for categorizing the architecture of the Muslim world would require a kind of agreement about reasonable frontiers.  Grabar mentioned that although such an agreement may not be easy to reach, it is not impossible to do so. 

Grabar added that by using a regional system of categorization for the architecture of the Muslim world, the word “Islamic” could be restricted to religious matters that deal with the interpretation of Qur’an, the Shari’a (the rules and regulations that are derived from the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad, and govern the live of Muslims), and other similar issues, but would not be used in other cultural issues.  However, that goes against deeply engraved beliefs of many Muslims, both conservatives and others, who strongly believe that Islam is more than merely a religion, but a whole ethos that defines a unique way of life. 

One audience member commented on Grabar’s view saying that regional divisions make sense as long as there is a level of agreement regarding them.  However, there also is the fact that history has changed the borders of such divisions.  For example, the Ottoman Empire was a vast entity that no longer exists as a single geographic unit.  Grabar concluded by mentioning that although it is true there would be problems with using regional borders for categorizing the architecture of the Muslim world, he still thinks it can be a very appropriate manner of categorizing this architecture.  For Grabar, using the term “Islamic architecture” to refer to the architecture of the Muslim world is confusing, and an alternative term needs to be developed. 

Prepared by Majd Musa and Mohammad al-Asad

© 2005