Professor Sheila Blair was the speaker at the 2011 Yarshater lectures. She discussed four objects – a dish; a rose-water sprinkler; an enormous; and a pair of carpets. These, she said, were “signals from the past”, as well as each having different resonances now.
While Professor Blair was speaking, I couldn’t help but be reminded of some previous work of hers, exploring what she called the Mirage of Islamic Art. This paper explored why objects from, say, Iran are described as ‘Islamic’ – when all the art produced in Renaissance Europe is not described as ‘Christian’, and (non-Islamic) African artefacts are not labelled in terms of the religion of the society they were created in. Professor Blair’s paper also discussed what makes something ‘art’. This last question is what I want to focus on here.
Each of the objects Professor Blair discussed is certainly beautiful, and skilfully made. But each of them was also (surely?) originally made to be used – to drink from; to perfume festivities and refresh guests; to act as a monumental commemoration; or simply to sit on – rather than purely to be displayed and admired, as they are now.
Ceramics, especially, were made for use, and in response to the changing demands of a market. However, as shown at left, and from the very beginnings of the Western conceptualisation of ‘Islamic Art’, we have preserved and displayed individual ceramic objects as works of ‘art’, even when they may originally have been mass-produced.
Although the Persians did something similar with their exotic Chinese ceramics – showing them off in the Chinikhana at Ardabil – the antique dishes and bowls at Ardabil were in active use up until at least the 1850s.
With this in mind, perhaps Western-art-historical methods of analysing works of ‘Islamic art’ are missing something. In considering the Ardabil carpets (click here to see the London carpet, and here for the cutdown version in LACMA), and the building(s) they may have been made for, Professor Blair did start down a more practical path. She suggested that, although the carpets do fit the huge Jannatsara at Ardabil ‘perfectly’; if this building was constructed as a mausoleum, then the carpets cannot have been woven for it, since the carpet design would have been nullified by a large cenotaph in the middle of the room.
I think she didn’t go far enough, though. Thinking functionally, rather than looking at works of art; where would the Shah (or other leader) sit? If he sat on the central medallion, he would lose the perspective effect of the two hanging lamps. But if he sat at one end, and the carpets were paired, he would either not be central (surely not!), or he would be looking at the borders. Whatever the answer, a ‘non-art’ approach opens up new and important questions.
Architecture, ceramics, textiles, calligraphy etc. in “the world of Islam.” Surely this should be the normal way of approaching the subject.
Are we not yet in the 21st century? At least in the 18th and 19th centuries Museums dealt with “Oriental Art”, although Euro-centered.
Should one not always start with geographical areas, before applying other conceptual definitions such as religion, and dynasties?
Plenty more to comment on……
Hi Caroline
Art like architecture is a product of the culture in which it was created. If it was an Islamic culture then it is Islamic. So what is Islamic- no culture stands isolated on its own -it is a rich mix of everything that flows in time and space (in and out) but most of all reflects the values of those who commission it + those who then use it. Isn’t this a no brainer?
Yasmin
Thanks to both of you!
Both comments most appreciated
Yolande
To be fair to Sheila; the Yarshater lectures were just about objects produced in greater Iran – so she did start with a geographical area. With the various invasions (especially of the Mongols) and the dynasties, the objects were produced for different regimes – I’m not sure how different in craft terms, of course, since the crafts and maybe the craftsmen were perhaps less mobile than the rulers
And Yasmin
The problem I see with the use of the word Islamic is that the word ‘Christian’ is not applied as the main descriptor of, for example, all those stunning Italian medieval altarpieces.
What I was trying to talk about wasn’t primarily the use of the word ‘Islamic’, though – but rather the word ‘art’. I am especially interested in how the remnants of a system of mass-production of ceramics have been labelled as ‘art’, and how that – I feel – impedes a deeper understanding of the individual pieces. It would be just as limited to – in four hundred years time – simply analyse all the colours and design details of various mobile phones produced over the last few decades – and ignore that they were being produced for a market.
But I obviously havent got this over in the posting – and will have to try again, later on!
Caroline
I understand what you are getting at but can a thing not only be created for a specific practical function but be beautifully and skilfully constructed too – therefore a work of art? Obviously as they become rare as the years pass and can no longer be used for fear of breakage and are then seen solely as works of art but surely it is not beyond us to appreciate their original raison d’être? I am probably just stating the obvious!!! sorry!
Sarah