Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not...
minx on Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:33:23 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> publication of "Jyllands-Posten" cartoons is not...

via The Washington Post [excerpt]:
In Art Museums, Portraits Illuminate A Religious Taboo
By Paul Richard
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; C01

All depictions of Muhammad -- or so we hear daily -- are now and have always been
forbidden in Islam. Art's history disputes this. True, that strict taboo today is
honored now by almost all Muslims, but old paintings of the prophet -- finely
brushed expensive ones, made carefully and piously by Muslims and for them -- are
well known to most curators of Islamic art.

There are numerous examples in public institutions in Istanbul, Vienna, Edinburgh,
London, Dublin, Los Angeles and New York.

Four are here in Washington in the Smithsonian Institution on the Mall. Three are
in the Freer Gallery of Art. The fourth is next door in the Freer's sister museum,
the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.

These portrayals of Muhammad are not big or new or common. Most were made for the
elite. And most were bound in books. These were lavish volumes that were political
in purpose, and were designed to celebrate and dignify self-promoting rulers. What
their paintings show is this: Once upon a time -- in the era of the caliphs and
the sultans and the shahs, when the faithful felt triumphant, and courtly learning
blossomed -- the prophet did appear in great Islamic art.

Old portrayals of Muhammad come from Sunni lands and Shia ones, from the Turkey of
the Ottomans, the India of the Mughals, from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Syria and
Iran. The oldest that survive were painted circa 1300. The newest were produced
about 200 years ago.

Three such pictures, from Turkey, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, are in the
collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

"Contrary to widespread assumptions today," says a statement issued by that
museum's Islamic specialists, "the traditional arts of Islam, whether Sunni or
Shiite, often did reverently depict the prophet, as abundantly attested by
manuscript illuminations ranging in time from the 13th to the 18th century, and in
space from Turkey to Bengal.  Pictorial representations of the prophet remain
accepted by many Shiites to this day, although they have been generally frowned
upon by most Sunnis since about the 18th century."

"Of course such depictions exist," says Sayyid Syeed, secretary general of the
Islamic Society of North America. "What is important to remember is that they were
never widely available. Had they been, the common people surely would have
resented them. But they were made for powerful dynasties, and no one could take
them to task.

"Today the consensus is strong. From Morocco to Indonesia, our tradition prohibits
such images."

Those rough cartoons from Denmark were intended to enrage. They do what they set
out to do. Published in a bunch, they disrespect the faith. The paintings of the
prophet found in grand museums aren't like that at all.

They were once imperial luxuries. The rulers who commissioned them were attempting
to ally themselves with God-approved, courageous figures of the past.

The paintings of the prophet were not made for walls. They stayed in costly
bindings. Sunlight hasn't dimmed them. [read on...]

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net