An Overview of Influential Elements on Persian Painting

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M.S. of Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 B.S. of Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Research about Persian painting (generally, all objects of Art), has its own difficulties. One of these difficulties, of course, is that, how was its creation. The creation of any object of art, is a twisted problem, deals with several factors, some apparent some stealth, but never a fixed number of them existed that could act like variables. In this paper, we tried, with help of some obvious considerations, to find some of these factors. The seven factors that we consider as seven principal points of act are content patterns (stereotypes/ icons), formal patterns (formal traditions/styles), patron, social- economical- political- religious conditions, primary context, artist (whether single artist or a group of them) and audience. All of these elements have not an equal place in comparison with the others. Audience is the most important one, because it has a twosome projection, in one hand, it have an influence on formation of painting (the painting is for audience whether it is a single king or a wide range of scholars or a wider one of usual people), in the other hand, it is the audience that uses (= read, look and so on) the painting and as a user, he is the true interpreter of that. The elements of formation of paintings are not the variables that can posit in any situation they are just factors that have causal and random roles. So is their scale of influence in each painting that cannot be determined. We have tried to introduce and explain all seven elements with the case study by a painting from baysunghuri Shahname:” lament of faramarz on coffins of his father, rustam, and his uncle, zavare.” This painting has not any special formal or conceptual elements that merits over the other painting, and just this make it a potential one for neutral study. Of course without any special mode, this painting has some important aspect in case of storytelling. First, the story is a secondary one and has no importance in Shahname. Second, the baysunghuri Shahname is an important one and has been produced for special purpose, that is, maybe, the ambition of baysunghur for reign. In any case, this painting has some important implications that is more than telling a story. The death of rustam as a most important hero in Shahname, have not been painted, just his coffin and this is the act of defamiliarization of this painting. For interpreting this factorial element, one must look for an element that conjoins form and content. In this case, the linker is Arabic phrases, who by verbal means, try to transfer the contents that mean for artist. In this case, the content is fatalism. In other word, every text has two conceptual modes. On is denotation and the other is connotation. By denotation, we mean what the object of art shows directly and by connotation, what the object shows covertly and, of course, the connotation mode can be artificial or otherwise natural. The end of paper will deal with the meaning of the painting.

Keywords


آدامووا، ا. ت. و ل. ت. گیوزالیان (1386)، نگاره‌های شاهنامه، ترجمه‌ی زهره فیضی، سازمان چاپ و انتشارات وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی، چاپ دوم، تهران.
بارت، رولان(1370)، عناصر نشانه شناسی، ترجمه‌ی مجید محمدی، انتشارات بین المللی الهدی، تهران.
سمرقندی، دولتشاه (1337)، تذکره‏الشعرا، تصحیح م. محمد لوی عباسی، انتشارات کتابفروشی بارانی، طهران.
منشی قمی، قاضی میر احمد (1352)، گلستان هنر، تصحیح احمد سهیلی، انتشارات بنیاد فرهنگ ایران، تهران.
موزه ی هنرهای معاصر تهران (1384)، شاهکارهای نگارگری ایران، موسسه هنرهای تجسمی، تهران.
میرخواند (1339)، روضه الصفا،کتابفروشی مرکزی، تهران.
هروی، دوست محمد (1349)، ذکر برخی هنرمندان و خوشنویسان، با تعلیقات فکری سلجوقی، نشر کرده انجمن تاریخ و ادب، افغانستان اکادیمی، کابل.
Barthes, Roland (1974), S/Z, Hill & Wang, New York.
Barthes, Roland (1987), Mythologies, 1957, Hill &Wang, New York.
Blair, Sheila and Jonathan Bloom (1994),The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800, Yale University press, Newhaven. Boas, Franz (1955), Primitive art, Dover, New York.
Eco, Umberto (1979), The role of the reader: Exploration on the semiotics of text, Bloomington, Indiana university press, Bloomington.
Chandler, Daniel (2007), Semiotics : The basic, 2th edition, Routledge, London.
Culler, Jonathan (1985), On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism, Forth print, Cornell university press, New York.
Grabar, Oleg (2000), Mostly miniatures, Princeton university press, New Jersey.
Grabar, Oleg (2006), “Notes on Iconography of Demotte Shahname”, in Islamic visual culture 1100-1800, Ashgate, Farnham, pp 107-151.
Gray, Basil ( 1977), Persian painting, Macmillan, London.
Gray, Basil (1947), Persian painting, Bats ford.
Gray, Basil (1971), Laurence Binyon, J,V,C, Wilkinson, Persian miniature painting, Dover, Mineola.
Gray, Basil, Ernest Benn (1930), Persian painting, 2th edition, London.
Kühnel, Ernst. (1938-1939), History of Miniature painting and drawing, in The survey of Persian art, by Arthur Up hum Pope and Phyllis Ackerman, Vol V, Oxford university press, Oxford.
Lenz, Thomas. W. Glenn D. Lowry. (1989), Timur and princely vision, Washington DC.
Pierce, Charles, Sanders (1931-1935), Collected papers, by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, Cambridge MA Harvard University press, Electronic edition.
Rice, David Talbot (1971), Islamic Painting, Edinburg University press, Edinburg. Robinson, B, W. (1976), Persian painting in the Indian office library, Phillip Wilson publishers, London.
Robinson, B, W. , Ernst, J, Grube, M, Meredith- Owons, R, W, Skelton (1970), Islamic painting and art of book, Faber& Faber, London.
Titley, Norah, M (1983), Persian miniature painting and it’s influence on the art of Turkey and India , The British library, London.