Very Beautiful. Thank you
Pretty pictures.
In college, I took an elective in Islamic Art and Culture, which included a lot of architecture.
It didn't focus much on the Ottomans, as I recall, so I don't think I'd heard of this guy before.
Beautiful!
Yes, much "Islamic" art and architecture is quite admirable--even enviable, IMHO. I find myself wishing sometimes that Islamic architecture would have a greater influence, in mainstream public buildings and even in church design.
Yet, sometimes, I find my personal attraction to be something of a "guilty" pleasure.
I don't know much about architecture's relationship to culture or cultural mindsets and values, but... I've long taken it for granted that there's *some* "obvious" connection between art and architecture and culture. If such styles of art and architecture were to be promoted, could it be argued that, in some sense or way, Islam would also be promoted?
Can this beauty and style be more promoted and enjoyed without [at least inadvertantly] contributing to Islam's overall appeal and growth?
I know--probably complicated question--this touches on psychology, sociology, and other social science stuff. And, further, I suppose it can be also argued that worries like this almost touches on the "totalitarian" impulse.
Anyway, what's your opinion?
For all its remarkable beauty, would having more "Islamic" art and architecture be good for American or overall Western culture?
Can American (or Western) society have more of these *without* becoming, in *some* sense, "Islamic"?
And should I be "ashamed" to pose such questions--are these questions "totalitarian"?
Jayson:
Whew--a lot packed into that post. Let me try to approach it from this angle: yes, architecture/art, at least until relatively recently, has been expressive of the culture that produces it. I'd argue that the Bauhaus glassbox is actually a pretty good expression of American utilitarian instincts, for example.
However, cultures borrow--regularly, routinely and without a hint of shame--from the art of other cultures without being transformed into them. E.g., America adopting Bauhaus from Weimar. I don't think there's any concern that borrowing from classical Islamic forms will have some transformative impact.
Moreover, I think it is useful to study Islamic art to understand how disincarnate it is. It is (some outliers like Safavid, Mughal and occasional Ottoman works aside) fundamentally abstract and finds the human form abhorrent. Definitely in a religious setting, and largely so outside of it. That is a profound statement in and of itself that deserves study.
Thanks for your response.
However, do you think this "disincarnate" nature precludes any inspiration for Church or religious architecture?
When we see Islamic art, we see Byzantine art as it would have evolved if the Iconoclasts had won.
Beautiful, geometrical patterns hinting at the divine, but no sign of the earthly expressions of divinity.
tdaxp:
Going to disagree slightly. Yes, Byzantine religious art would have been similarly abstract, but secular art would have been just as figural as always. The difference between Byzantine iconoclasm and Islamic was that the former didn't extend it into "secular" areas.
Jayson:
That depends. I think in a way it could be a good preparation for it--abstraction becomes exhausting after a while. Nobody wants to look at a caleidoscope forever.
"The difference between Byzantine iconoclasm and Islamic was that the former didn't extend it into "secular" areas."
Do you think it might have come to that in the end, though? If the Iconoclasts had won, and a sufficiently convinced Emperor had been around, would the cleansing of idols have extended to public art such as statues? After all, if you're going to remove images of Christ as Emperor of the Universe, it's a bit tough to argue you should keep images of the earthly Emperor around.
Though perhaps the intermingling of secular images with religious for political purposes (I'm thinking of the famous mosaics of Justinian and Theodora in Ravenna) meant that Iconoclasm would never catch on - art being too useful as a propaganda tool meant that secular art would survive, and that permitted religious art to tiptoe back.
Commenting by HaloScan
