Modern and historical theories of affectivity suggest non-semiotic modes through which geometry might convey meaning. Nonetheless, his assertion depends more on the dominant model of communication than on the capacity of geometry to communicate. Grabar is right to observe that geometry in Islamic cultures communicates differently: there is no well-circulated, universally acknowledged text articulating geometry as representing the Divine. For example, the cross symbolizes Christianity because its repetition under cultures of Christian hegemony gives it meaning beyond two short intersecting lines. Under the de Sausseurian postulate of the arbitrary nature of the sign, he assumed that the attribution of value to a signifier depends on a shared code. In 1976, the influential Islamic art historian Oleg Grabar responded to discussions associating Islamic geometries with spirituality as misguided, arguing that without a universally acknowledged theorization attributing meaning to geometry, it would be impossible to affirm doctrinal meaning in Islamic cultures (Grabar, 1992, p. How could geometry be declared traditional and anti-intellectual in the Islamic context yet progressive and innovative in modern Europe? Does geometry convey meaning? If so, what is that meaning and how is it conveyed? Modernist abstraction frequently resembled Islamic pattern in its reliance on isometric (evenly spaced) grids, as well as the tension concerning its articulation of meaning. Yet during the exact same era of this demotion from art to craft, modernist art was increasingly discovering meaning in geometric abstraction and veering away from pictorialism. Footnote 3 A parallel association of Islamic art with geometric pattern described as decorative suggested Islamic visual culture as superficially attractive but less intellectually evocative than that of the ‘West,’ associated with figural representation. This modern discussion of Islamic pattern as non-representational and non-meaningful coincides with increasing assertions of Islamic art as characterized by an absolute ban on images. Footnote 2 Conversely, modern art historical accounts of these geometries insist on their decorative nature. Footnote 1 While explicit emic theorizations of such treatments are rare, literary references to surface treatments frequently infer relationships with the Divine. Geometry thereby functions as a language without a code.Īfter the twelfth century in societies of Islamic hegemony, isometric polyhedral geometries appeared frequently on surface treatments of objects large and small, from architecture to metalwork, manuscript pages to tombs. It argues that the frequent recognition of intrinsic meaning in geometry, expressed in both premodern Islamic and modern secular interpretations, undermines art historical expectations of theorization as a necessary intermediary for communication. The final section the expressive capacity of artistic responses to historical Islamic isometric geometries in the adaptive reuse of historical Iranian arts as contemporary abstraction in the sculptures of Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian (1928–1919) and in the popular transformation prints of M. It then explores European discussions of geometry between language and ornament poised between a search for universal reason and universal spiritualism, both in modernist painting and in modern exhibitions. First, it examines the articulation of geometric meaning in Islamic discourses. This paper explores this question in four parts. Poised between discussions of modernism and Islam, the attribution of linguistic capacity to geometry serves as a measure for the possibility of abstracting pure reason from the religious roots of representationalism. The question of whether geometric pattern communicates-whether it functions as a language without a code-reflects broader tensions about the relationship between secular and spiritual communication. Discussions of surface pattern in Islamic art resonate within broader tensions about the role of figural representation in communicating meaning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |