چكيده لاتين :
Muhammad Zaman, painter of the Safavid era, in some of his paintings has copied the western (“Farangi”) works. He has also used some of the techniques of the Western Modern age painting in some of his original works, having a traditional theme. Among these techniques, perspective has a great significance. In his copied works, Muhammad Zaman has used the perspective correctly, but in his original works, sometimes the perspective has been done correctly and sometimes incorrectly and unaligned. Until now, some commentators have argued that the use of perspective by Muhammad Zaman was due to a kind of incompetency and lack of academic education. In this article, in contrast to this view, it is argued that the point about Muhammad Zaman’s correct/incorrect use of perspective has been underestimated and therefore, there is a need to reinterpret what has hitherto been considered as a simple inaccuracy. In his original works, Muhammad Zaman, has arisen a question about the relation between traditional Persian miniatures and Western painting. Hence, in this paper, by examining some of the original works of Muhammad Zaman, this question is discussed and it is claimed that in the absence of theoretical discussions concerning the relation between the old and the new elements in painting, the inevitable result was the domination of Western perspective on Iranian painting. In other words, the works of Muhammad Zaman can be considered as a vehicle for “thinking”. Imaginary atmosphere of Persian painting and the Western perspective are mutually exclusive, and Muhammad Zaman transformed this incompatibility to the image as a “question”.
Keywords: Muhammad Zaman, Perspective, Painting of Safavid.
Introduction
The title of my Ph.D. thesis was “The problem of basis in theoretical Iranian art studies”. While writing the thesis, I encountered issues that needed further study. Perspective was one of those issues. Formerly, I had read important works such as Panofsky’s Perspective as Symbolic Form and Belting’s Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science, but it seemed to me that the Perspective issue in Iran had certain conditions that had to be examined in the greater context of the nature of art in Iran. It is not possible to describe that framework in detail here, but I would point out that at the time of the emergence of perspective in Iranian painting, there was not even a word for “Fine Arts” in Iran. Of course, in Europe at that time such a term had not yet been formed as well, but the situation in Iran was different. So, there was no theoretical understanding of the arts at that time and there was also no treatise on perspective. The issue of perspective was important because, unlike other western techniques, the structure of Iranian painting and western perspective were mutually exclusive. Muhammad Zaman was among the first painters to use perspective, but as I will explain, this use was problematic. In this article, I will try to show how his works can be considered as a vehicle for this problem.
Muhammad Zaman and the Problem of Perspective
In some of his paintings, Muhammad Zaman has copied the western paintings. In Persian, it calls “Farangi-sazi” (This terms means making paintings by imitating western themes or techniques). In these paintings perspective has been used almost correctly and shows that he was briefly acquainted with this technique. But he also has “original works” which are more important to my discussion. In the latter works, sometimes the perspective has been done correctly and sometimes incorrectly and unaligned. Although these “original works” have a Persian theme, their form is a combination of western and Persian principles. Contrary to the supposition of a group of researchers, some other scholars have proven that Muhammad Zaman has never traveled to Italy and India. In this article, this issue is not discussed and, instead, his remaining works are addressed. So, in this article, five “original” paintings of Muhammad Zaman are examined: “A meeting between Afrasiab and Garsivaz”, “Fitna and Bahram Gur”, “Simurgh appearing at the birth of Rustam”, “Bestowal of a ring”, and Finally “Head of Iraj presented to Salm and Tur”. I will first show that in them the structure of Iranian painting is combined with the wrong and correct perspectives. There are two hypotheses about the combination of incorrect and correct perspectives of these works: First, Muhammad Zaman did not have a proper understanding of the western linear perspective, which indicates that he had not traveled to Italy and he did not have academic education in painting. The other hypothesis is that he, consciously or unconsciously, realized the contradiction between the Imaginary atmosphere of Persian painting and the Western perspective, and therefore transformed this contradiction to the image as a “question”. In this paper, taking into account some considerations, the second hypothesis is defended. In the final section, two issues are considered: Before Muhammad Zaman and after him. Before him, Behzad, Reza Abbasi and their followers had provided a groundwork for the encounter between Western and Iranian paintings. But perspective was never a problem for them. It was Muhammad Zaman who, using perspectives in his original works, dared and crossed the boundaries of tradition (“Sunnah”). However, he could not find a clear answer. After him, this question was neglected and considered as a style in Iranian painting, the so-called “Farangi-sazi”. His question, however, had the potential to be viewed as a question of painting style, as well as the question about the larger context of our relation with the West.
Conclusion
Iran has inevitably encountered West since the Safavid era, and its arts were no exception. In that time, Muhammad Zaman made new experiences in painting, of which perspective was the most problematic one. His style continued until the Qajar period among some painters. According to some scholars, Kamal-ol-Molk eventually corrected them. But did they make a mistake? Can art be said to be true and false? No! I finally conclude that Muhammad Zaman’s “gaze” was lost, and today we can regard his work as a “visual question” that helps us understand the nature of Iranian art in the modern era.
