Org Mobile Site
Last weekend was the official start of the Cherry Blossom Festival here in DC. As a part of the Festival the Smithsonian had a special exhibit on Japanese art. When I was there I also looked at various paintings from around the world. One thing I noticed after it was all done was that I didn't see any women represented in the Islamic Art section. I saw women represented in all cultures except this one. Now, granted, I gave the exhibits a cursory glance but I think I would have noticed them.
Personally I consider the female body a work of art (with various exceptions of course) but what about Islamic artists? Is the culture which produced these works so biased against women that they won’t even acknowledge them in art, or is it the opposite? Of course a bit sarcastically I thought that maybe there are no Islamic women (because who knows what’s hiding under a burka) and maybe they’re so viciously against homosexuality because they’re afraid their secret will get out. But following that logic lead me to believe that their children spring out of holes in the ground like dwarves which doesn’t seem too probable.
So, did I miss something here? Any art historians here?
Personally I consider the female body a work of art (with various exceptions of course) but what about Islamic artists? Is the culture which produced these works so biased against women that they won’t even acknowledge them in art, or is it the opposite? Of course a bit sarcastically I thought that maybe there are no Islamic women (because who knows what’s hiding under a burka) and maybe they’re so viciously against homosexuality because they’re afraid their secret will get out. But following that logic lead me to believe that their children spring out of holes in the ground like dwarves which doesn’t seem too probable.
So, did I miss something here? Any art historians here?
Well this is how the Persians reproduce:
Contrary to common disbelief, figural secular art is not forbidden under islam. There are plenty of islamic paintings of women that would break the forum rules. But museums are a bit wary about exhibiting them nowadays, you can guess why I presume.
Contrary to common disbelief, figural secular art is not forbidden under islam. There are plenty of islamic paintings of women that would break the forum rules. But museums are a bit wary about exhibiting them nowadays, you can guess why I presume.
Well I was hoping to learn about ANY depictions of the female form, not just the one's I'd rather see.
Islam forbids the depictation of Muhammed, eventually this prohibition was perceived and resulted in a halt of any depictations/illustrations in Islam world in general. Ottomans have some miniature artists that used to make brief depictations of several padishahs, a part of an army etc. However I'm not sure if they ever illustrated the female body. That would be something "hard" to do in those times.
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine:
Islam forbids the depictation of Muhammed, eventually this prohibition was perceived and resulted in a halt of any depictations/illustrations in Islam world in general. Ottomans have some miniature artists that used to make brief depictations of several padishahs, a part of an army etc. However I'm not sure if they ever illustrated the female body. That would be something "hard" to do in those times.
You know, once I had borrowed an Osprey book, and in it you see depictions of Muhammed from inside early mosques, of course the images have since been etched off again. But I found it very interesting.Islam forbids the depictation of Muhammed, eventually this prohibition was perceived and resulted in a halt of any depictations/illustrations in Islam world in general. Ottomans have some miniature artists that used to make brief depictations of several padishahs, a part of an army etc. However I'm not sure if they ever illustrated the female body. That would be something "hard" to do in those times.
Supposedly from the places these pictures were taken it was fairly widespread in the middle east and Persia (as in, not located in a specific region, numbers can be speculated on). Sadly I don't remember which one it was, but it could be the one that deals with Yarmuk or the initial expansion of Islam.
The point is, that apparently those early muslims were not as certain about that rule. Of course they could easily have been a very small minority.
It's my understanding that this Iconoclastic movement within Islam is a recent development. I know the Eastern and Western Catholic churches had a hell of a fight over this. There's been a depiction of Mohamed in the Supreme Court building since it was built.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO