دود

این مقاله تاملی است بر یکی که خصوصیات نواندیشانه ی نقاش مینیا توریست ایرانی در قرن ها پیش: اینکه او چگونه نقاشی اش را وا می دارد تا خالق خود (نقاش) را انکار کند و به خود به مثابه ی یک شی اشاره کند. این موضوع را موازی این مفهوم در هنر مدرن، به اختصار شرح داده ام.  امکان ضمیمه کردن نقاشی ها نبود، اما مقاله بدون آنها نیز کامل است.

Union of Subject and Painting as an

  Object in Early Persian

 Miniatures

As one studies the history of western art from the second half of the 19^th century to the present time he can discern a characteristic in paintings which shows their painters tendency to treat them as objects rather than pictures. This paper claims the existence of this particular quality in the early Iranian miniatures. The reader is initially going to read a brief chronicle about the aforementioned concept in western modern painting in order to understand the subject better. Then the writer elaborates the methods used by Iranian painters to show their struggle, weather consciously or unconsciously, to achieve this quality in their paintings. The reader is referred to some examples attached to this paper.      

In spite of this hackneyed idea about Iranian paintings that they have always been at the service of other arts especially literature, or at the service of ornamenting royal palaces and baths(Okashe 71-87) in the Islamic period, one can find some struggles by Iranian painters that shows their view of their art as one which possesses autonomy. in spite of the fact that Iranian painting is somehow in its western sense a figurative art, Iranian painter exploits some methods to achieve a picture which is beyond a mere representative one, so we can claim that Iranian painting is in a position between abstract and figurative art, although it is true that it always remained in this position and did not go further nor it meant to go, because it achieved a spiritual supremacy from which many western paintings are devoid. But one has to pay attention to this fact that this quality can only be seen by a one-century-depth of investigation in European modern painting. It goes without saying that mere figurative art such as the pictures painted by western painters between the renaissance and Cezanne, are revealers of their painters view to them as windows opening to another or this world, here we see that painting as an object is completely out of mode: painting is just a frame in which western painter tries to achieve a picture which is more and more in agreement with the materialistic rules of light and shadow or perspective. Even when we look at a painting with supernatural or divine matter we can see that it tries to seem more lifelike to us.

But this is only to the end of 19^th century when Cezanne consciously ignores the established rules of anatomy and perspective in favor of the visual symmetry of his paintings: here we see that painter is inclined to treat his work as something more than a representative picture, here is the point where Cezanne maybe this time unconsciously begins viewing his product as an object. he even goes one step further and as an adherent to postimpressionists uses pure colors. Here there is an important thing which seems necessary to be mentioned: this word object is exposed to the threatening of being misunderstood through considering it as something materialistic, but we have to know that some of the most spiritualist western painters like Piet Mondrian have tried to open a real window to another world by treating their paintings as different objects.     

After Cezanne, painters like Picasso and Braque began cutting with representational painting; their paintings became more painterly and less academic. they also were under the influence of Cezanne s innovations and managed to be called the founders of the greatest artistic movement during 20^th century: cubism. Douglas Cooper explains how these two painters managed to abandon traditional rules and splash their subject matters on a completely flat surface. He shows how cubist painting stood one step further from representative art and was a scornful manifestation against this idea that reality can only be shown through beautiful colorful pictures painted by a master (206). For example if the model was a guitar cubist painter studied it from various points of views and finally the fruit of his study was a completely flat picture which was another guitar in its own right. Braqe says: "cubist painting is a visual reality."(qtd, in Cooper, 285) as we approach the end of cubism, paintings seem to become less and less gestural till some painters cut with the gestural painting and started working on new subjects: Van Doesburg says "nothing is more real than a line, a color, a surface"(qtd, in Turner, 6). The famous American painter Jackson Pollock started pouring color on his horizontally put canvases to reflect "the working of the subconscious mind."(Turner, 5) here object (his canvas) acts like a means of conveying the concept of the painter to the spectator; "what was to go on canvas was not a picture but an event" (Turner, 25).             

But the complete abandonment of subject from materialistic world (pure abstraction) is the thing which brings a famous name to our mind: Vasily Kandinsky. In his famous treatise Point and Line to plane, Kandinsky tries to give independence like that of music from the materialistic world to his paintings. He says that the subject of painting must return back to its fundamental component which is line (Kandinsky, 142). As one studies Concerning the Spiritual in art he can find Kandinsky s struggle to use this independence against the idea of art for art s sake ("aimless art") to achieve a spiritual effect on his audience.

If the wall is unavoidable for painting then painters can at least avoid being relegated to the role of decorating spaces that have been predetermined by architects. To do so painting must produce its own wall a solid wall of color plains which conceals the architectural wall.

It is a quotation from a speech declared by Gregory Schufreider professor of philosophy in louisiana state university about the paintings of Piet Mondrian, in which he claims that Mondrian tries to define a self-dependant space before and behind his paintings. Here we can again see that painter considers his painting as a thing out of and independent from materialistic world. Also one has to pay attention to the anti-ornamental characteristic of Mondrian painting indicated in this quotation.    

On the other hand Marcel Duchamp In a nihilistic and minimalist action exhibited his commonplace objects as "forms of manifestation" "here painting [art works which he preferred calling ready-mades] and subject matter are the same"(turner 246) Duchamp himself in his "apropos of ready-mades" says: "one important characteristic was the short sentence which I occasionally inscribed on the ready-made. That sentence instead of describing object like a title was meant to carry the mind of the spectator toward other regions more verbal". Here we see that his mind is not engaged in a picture at all. Here painting is an object. we have to remember many critics do not accept Duchamp s work as art. Although there are very philosophical contemplations of Duchamp s works but writing on them here is mere digression.

  Tired of abstract art, and in order to extricate from expressing personal emotions, pop painters like Andy Warhol turned the point of their attention to popular subjects and commonplace objects. But this time instead of that anti-aesthetic point of view to the everyday objects, pop artist managed to find and celebrate beauty in the things which were inherently applied and were devoid of artistic values before the choice of the artist. Aydin Aqdashloo says "in his [Warhol] method the things which became art, were hardly believed to have the potentiality of entering this serious and great pantheon. in his world simple and commonplace objects found a new meaning" (qtd. In yasrebi. 2). also in some of his figurative paintings time seems to cease: he repeats the same picture in a single frame and points to this fact that changes done by time is meaningless to the world of his painting, it brings the same characteristic of unchanging objects to our minds.

Now is the time to discuss this quality by which painting denies standing for another thing, in Iranian miniature as a whole. It seems that Iranian painter s steps can be traced on the way that leads to the union of subject and painting.  

         In Iranian painting painter makes a microcosm for the characters of his work in which they can live. To the spectator it seems as if the characters are standing on the surface of the painting. In many cases the characters are placed in the marginal space between the main plain and the white of the paper (miniature 1). Painter tries to make an atmosphere which is not representative to a large extent. One reason can be the mythological content of Iranian miniature. A myth cannot exist in a materialistic or representational world. In the second miniature,  the painter wants us to ignore everything which intervenes between Khosro and Shirin and calls our attention to this fact that their world is an independent one and in the small proportion of the painting Khosro is able to see Shirin through all those obstacles as if he can watch her through the eyes of the spectator who can see both of them before him. The result is the fact that the painter exploits some methods to make such a world. As though Every time the painting has tried to cut with the materialistic world, it has become more like an object while the content turns more subjective.

But what are the methods used by the painter to make an independent object as his painting? Some of these methods were mentioned above, but they pertain to modern western painting while we are going to seek the methods used by Iranian miniaturists.

In order to find these methods a series of Iranian masterpieces has been studied by the writer of these lines. Every characteristic is going to be explained with one or more examples.

It is better to begin with the most-mentioned characteristic of Iranian painting. In Iranian miniature painter "who is not at all concerned  with the representation of complicated nature, is completely preoccupied with the beauty of the composition of his painting" (Binyon, 25). Iranian miniature is not a window to our materialistic world so perspective and the knowledge of the effect of atmosphere and light on the objects, and every other method which is to serve this kind of picture, is completely useless for the Iranian painter and he earnestly insists on rejecting or even attacking them. So an Iranian miniature is completely flat. It helps the painter to indicate to his very painting and its surreal content not to this known world. 

This abandonment of these representational rules urges the miniaturist to work with two fundamental elements of painting: line and color.

 Here lines do not pierce the surface of the painting to make the illusion of dimension but move freely on the surface to convey the emotions aimed by the painter, even in some cases they are used as the pattern of the cloths of a character to show his feeling. It is in contrast with some western abstract painters like Piere Solage and even kandinsky himself who confined some aspects of their paintings by perspective; a representational element.

Color is used in small or vast flat plains without change in tune. Colors are tried to be in complete harmony with each other. The main point here is that Iranian painter pays close attention to the distribution of color plains on the surface of the painting to show that what is important is the painting itself not the picture in its classic sense of European painting. A miniature is in one sense an abstract art and the emphasis of the picture is on the surface of the paper.

Okashe argues that one can divide an Iranian miniature to several independent pictures each of which is a complete painting in its own right (37). the miniaturist world of painting is a complete one. It means that surface of the painting is divided into a number of separate areas each of which is like a room of a great building that is built on the surface of the painting to allow one or more characters to dwell in it (miniature 3). Even "For the sake of clarity and satisfaction of the spectator and in order to avoid confusion, in Iranian miniature, the characters are rarely seen to overlap each other"(Binyon, 23). When a painter wants to show a cave in which someone dwells first he creates a mountain which is usually an iconic one with a pattern reminiscent of a mountain then he opens a black and flat area among these illusory crags and finally lets his character take home in it (miniature 4). This quality can also be seen in those paintings in which the painter has mingled some interior and exterior scenes in a single frame here walls of the building do not deprive us of knowing what is happening inside it because they are just playing the role of the divider of the surface of the paper. So painting itself is viewed as an independent building made by the artist (miniature 5). Also one can find this characteristic in battle scenes when two armies are arranged in front of each other here we have a visual metaphor; surface of the paper is described as a battlefield in which right and left above and the bottom of the paper are no longer devoid of importance (miniature 6).

The borders of the painting, is decided by the shape of the objects included in it. In some cases Iranian painter does not confine himself to one of the defined established frames; usually main geometric forms, the  general shape of his painting is not a predetermined rectangle, instead it follows the external borders of the constituents of the painting (miniature 7). Even in some cases some of the elements like a tree transcend the defined area of the painting and indicate the paper upon which it has been painted and the text it serves (miniature 8). Again we see that the painting denies being a mere picture which is restricted by a windowpane; it determines its own borders.

One of the main features which is usually present in Iranian paintings is the art of Tazhib. This art is mostly used to serve the marginal space of a painting or calligraphy as an ornamenting pattern. Maybe the fact that tazhib is always regarded as an ornamenting or eye-striking pattern is the result of the stress of Iranian painter on these certain qualities, but it is possible to find other qualities in it. In Iranian painting Tazhib is no longer a marginalized or surrounding pattern; it flouts into the main plain of the painting and contributes to emotional and visual symmetry of a painting (miniatures 9 and 10). In addition these decorating patterns are non-figurative save in some cases in which they are akin to patterns of some plant; a single pattern is repeated and fills everywhere from the clothes of the characters to the walls of the buildings or even the backgrounds. These lines shape a predefined pattern and are not directly manifestations of the painter s emotions, instead it seems that they are expressing their own feelings, by using them the painter becomes more obscure and makes the spectator drink his potion while the butler remains disguised. Here again painting indicates to itself by negating the existence of a painter behind these self-expressing patterns. One can hardly find such a self-effacing painter in the world of western abstract painting. Recall Kandinsky who believed art is born out of an inner desire (Kandinsky 27). These qualities make the spectator undergo – as American painter, Rothko says about his paintings- a "spiritual experience".

As it is mentioned in Islamic painting and one can also easily understand, a conspicuous quality of Iranian miniature is the unfeeling faces that its characters posses; "many factors have been influential in this case…. We have to know that art works have mostly been dependent on court and had to be representative of the gravity of the person who is represented" (Okashe, 85). Okashe is trying to give an excuse based on environmental factors but this quality can have some more artistic justification. This very characteristic attenuates the representational quality of these characters as ordinary men possessing feeling, this adds to the mystery of the atmosphere of the painting and helps painter not to spoil the general feeling of his painting. In his book about the paintings of Rene Magritte, Foucault argues how familiar objects are completely defamiliarized and metamorphosed; "once one asks these pictured objects of their identity they response by indicating to themselves" (40); they claim that they are nothing but themselves. One can find this quality in the people painted in Iranian miniatures; they are men, but men grown from the boughs of a different tree with roots clasping another earth. As we see, this quality likewise adds to the abstract quality of the painting and invites a cute spectator to enjoy the ethereal and non-visual quality of it. This non-visual quality is the ideal concept of what we have considered in this argument as objectification of painting.

Iranian miniature schools have mostly been investigated as a series of historical events. They have been described in myriads of pages, but what has been written on them hardly goes beyond mere description and recapitulating their characteristics. Iranian miniature belongs to that kind of art which Kandinsky says: "lives beyond the time."(qtd. in Vezin 112) To find the secrets of the immortality of the Iranian masterpieces they have to be studied deeper. Maybe the mentioned problem is the result of this fact that Iranian miniatures have always been viewed as mere ornamenting or narrating pictures, so those qualities of them which are mostly at the service of human soul and its elevation are carelessly ignored.