Hi Johnbod,
Good start. I'll be adding some sources and comments below:
"Although in modern times images of Muhammad are mostly found in Shia contexts, this was not always the case." It's probably better to spell out here that the unveiled images were predominantly Persian Sunni. The transition to Shi'ism as official religion in the 1500s Persia coincided with the new, veiled artistic trend, although it was more than just a coincidence per Gruber's paper on this topic [3]. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer we use "anthropomorphic" (or another more precise word) because hilya and calligraphy are even more figurative in one sense of the word "figurative". ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had a reply from Christiane about the question of relative frequency of the various types of images. It's a good one, and vindicates some of Johnbod's earlier concerns:
Your question about images of Muhammad-- unveiled, veiled, and as a flaming bundle-- is an excellent one. Most scholars will tell you that veiled images of Muhammad outnumber unveiled ones, but their statement is not based on any systematic research into the subject, and certainly not based on any firm statistics. The reason that this recycled truism has come to dominate is based on the nature of scholarly research within the field of Islamic art, namely its heavy focus on Safavid painting as "classical" or "high quality" pictorial art. Veiled images of Muhammad most certainly dominate in Safavid Persian painting from ca. 1505-1700-- and in fact, more narrowly, from 1505-1600. In this instance, we can confidently state that Muhammad is almost without exception rendered with a facial veil.
But that is only one fragment of the story, and it only covers 16th-century Iran. There are numerous images of Muhammad shown unveiled in illustrated manuscripts and paintings produced in the Turco-Persian world from ca. 1307-1505. In fact, during these two centuries (14th-15th centuries), the veristic pictorial mode is the accepted norm. So if we were to reangle our focus away from the Safavids and look instead to the Ilkhanids and Timurids, then we would have to conclude that unveiled images dominate instead.
As you can see, it all depends on the chronological and geographical bracketing. Moreover, our conclusions, at this juncture, should be conclusions based on a series of pictorial clusters, in which we see a clear development from veristic images (14-15th centuries) to veiled images (16th century) to, in the Indian subcontinent, flaming bundle (18th century), to absolutely abstract hilye renderings in Ottoman Turkey (17th-19th centuries). The best way to stay as true as possible to the data is to simply conclude that each genre held sway at a particular place and time. I would stay away from concluding that any one genre dominated over the other; they simply fluctuated until the modern period, until, for many complex politico-cultural reasons, images of Muhammad began to disappear.
To my mind, the scholar and student of Islamic art has to show an openness of mind and a willingness to look at the data with no other agenda (such as a predisposition to claim that only unveiled images are normative, to be open to the fact that they could be sponsored in Sunni, rather than Shi'i, milieus, and so forth). These prejudices are sometimes hard to overcome for the believer and/or non-specialist ...
Of course you could argue that the fact that scholarly reception has focused on Safavid depictions means that we should give them marginally more weight than the others, but it's nice to finally have some authoritative info! -- J N 466 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod,
Good start. I'll be adding some sources and comments below:
"Although in modern times images of Muhammad are mostly found in Shia contexts, this was not always the case." It's probably better to spell out here that the unveiled images were predominantly Persian Sunni. The transition to Shi'ism as official religion in the 1500s Persia coincided with the new, veiled artistic trend, although it was more than just a coincidence per Gruber's paper on this topic [3]. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer we use "anthropomorphic" (or another more precise word) because hilya and calligraphy are even more figurative in one sense of the word "figurative". ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had a reply from Christiane about the question of relative frequency of the various types of images. It's a good one, and vindicates some of Johnbod's earlier concerns:
Your question about images of Muhammad-- unveiled, veiled, and as a flaming bundle-- is an excellent one. Most scholars will tell you that veiled images of Muhammad outnumber unveiled ones, but their statement is not based on any systematic research into the subject, and certainly not based on any firm statistics. The reason that this recycled truism has come to dominate is based on the nature of scholarly research within the field of Islamic art, namely its heavy focus on Safavid painting as "classical" or "high quality" pictorial art. Veiled images of Muhammad most certainly dominate in Safavid Persian painting from ca. 1505-1700-- and in fact, more narrowly, from 1505-1600. In this instance, we can confidently state that Muhammad is almost without exception rendered with a facial veil.
But that is only one fragment of the story, and it only covers 16th-century Iran. There are numerous images of Muhammad shown unveiled in illustrated manuscripts and paintings produced in the Turco-Persian world from ca. 1307-1505. In fact, during these two centuries (14th-15th centuries), the veristic pictorial mode is the accepted norm. So if we were to reangle our focus away from the Safavids and look instead to the Ilkhanids and Timurids, then we would have to conclude that unveiled images dominate instead.
As you can see, it all depends on the chronological and geographical bracketing. Moreover, our conclusions, at this juncture, should be conclusions based on a series of pictorial clusters, in which we see a clear development from veristic images (14-15th centuries) to veiled images (16th century) to, in the Indian subcontinent, flaming bundle (18th century), to absolutely abstract hilye renderings in Ottoman Turkey (17th-19th centuries). The best way to stay as true as possible to the data is to simply conclude that each genre held sway at a particular place and time. I would stay away from concluding that any one genre dominated over the other; they simply fluctuated until the modern period, until, for many complex politico-cultural reasons, images of Muhammad began to disappear.
To my mind, the scholar and student of Islamic art has to show an openness of mind and a willingness to look at the data with no other agenda (such as a predisposition to claim that only unveiled images are normative, to be open to the fact that they could be sponsored in Sunni, rather than Shi'i, milieus, and so forth). These prejudices are sometimes hard to overcome for the believer and/or non-specialist ...
Of course you could argue that the fact that scholarly reception has focused on Safavid depictions means that we should give them marginally more weight than the others, but it's nice to finally have some authoritative info! -- J N 466 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)