Islamic Art

‘Islamic art’ a term most experts agree is an inadequate and over generalised term

used in places like the British museum, in newspapers and exhibitions. It is misleading and

plainly a bad term but what is ‘Islamic art’? According to some experts it refers to artefacts

and objects made in societies where Islam was the dominant or religion of the ruling elite.

This article focuses on the origin of this construct and explores the reasons behind us-

ing the term ‘Islamic’ for the whole spectrum of art belonging to a vast and diverse region

without regard for the period in which it was created, area or specific culture and context.

The article further explores why are we using an inaccurate generalised term when in an-

thropology more specific terms are used. Moreover, the article challenges the usage of a

religion to classify and label a construct that encompasses art, culture and history, and has

little or nothing to do with the religion or its tenants? This issue is of particular interest

since religion, even if it inspires art, it is not founded upon art and it is not the root of art.

However, it is puzzling that this terminology is used to describe art belonging to an area

and region that is multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual and multi-religious.

Over recent years there has been a rise in awareness of Islam and Muslims in the

West. Since the events of 2001 there has been a keen interest in the media, popular cul-

ture including films on Muslims, Islam and the overall Middle East. There has also been

coinage of words and concepts such as Islamic terrorists, Muslim politics, political Islam;

demonisation of Muslims particularly Middle Easterners on one hand and the consequent

movements to counter Islamophobia on the other. This has caused a huge political move-

ment at both ends of the spectrum. Interestingly there is a corresponding rise of ‘political

correctness’ on the issue of Islam and Muslims. When looking at the term and categorisa-

tion of ‘Islamic art’, it is worthwhile exploring the definition of ‘Islamic’ and how does it ap-

ply to art and people. Of particular interest is the validity of this definition in the context of a
Islamic Art

multiethnic and multi-religious area that encompasses the whole region and the origins of

this art work.

One of the things we must remember is that Islam is not a nation, ethnic group, nor

language. It is solely a religion. So how does this apply to the definition and categorisation

of ‘Islamic art’? How can art historians and anthropologists use a definition like ‘Islamic art’

as a mass generalisation thus excluding the contribution to art of distinctively different

groups within that society. The use of such a term is problematic due to the fact that it ex-

cludes the input of different groups and negates the contribution of the local culture, reli-

gions and people and their unique contribution to the art of that time. Besides wiping out

the contribution to art in the multicultural spheres on territories dominated by Muslims and

societies that were not Muslims, a loose term such as ‘Islamic art’ wipes out the time, con-

text and ignores the secular and societal art works produced by different cultures and

groups.

First let us look at definitions of ‘Islamic art’ as found on the internet. Then let us ex-

plore some of the points in the definitions of the various civilisation and cultures that con-

tributed vastly to art even in post Islamic period of their history. One critical thing to take

into consideration is the fact that in reality there is no hegemony in the Middle East or the

‘Muslim’ world just like there is none in the Christian world. That is to say that there was no

one leadership, one religion or homogeneous view point. To illustrate the point, the Per-

sians were Sunni then later Shia Muslims while those who followed the caliphate were

Sunni Muslims. The history of Sunni Islam in Iran differs to that of the Arab and Turkish

world; in the Christian world it would be likened slightly to the differences to Catholicism

and Protestants in division.

The first definition from High Beam says: ‘Islamic art’ [Arabic Islam, ‘surrender (to

God)’] art produced in the service of Islam, the monotheistic religion revealed to the
Islamic Art

Prophet Muhammad ( d. 632) in early 7th-century Arabia, which quickly spread throughout

much of Eurasia and Africa to become one of the major world religions. Islamic visual arts

are decorative, colourful, and, in the case of religious art, non-representational. The Koran

regulated every detail of the lives of the Faithful but gave few precise rules for the arts

apart from banning the production of cult image. 1

Wikipedia’s definition is that, ‘Islamic art’ encompasses the visual arts produced from

the 7th century onwards by people (not necessarily Muslim) who lived within the territory

that was inhabited by culturally ‘Islamic’ populations (Marilyn Jenkins-Madina, Richard Et-

tinghauset and Architecture 650-1250, Yale University Press). It includes fields as varied

as architecture, calligraphy, paintings, and ceramics, among others. Typically, though not

entirely, Islamic art has focused on the depiction of patterns and Arabic calligraphy, rather

than on figures, because it is feared by many Muslims that the depiction of the human form

is idolatry and thereby a sin against Allah, forbidden in the Qur’an 2.

Thus the phrase 'Islamic art' is an umbrella term used for post-7th century AD visual

arts, created by Muslim and non-Muslim artists within the territories occupied by the

Muslims and non-Muslims while being ruled by a Muslim leader who is either a King, gov-

ernor or Caliphate, while in some instances the Muslim population did not have rulers who

were Muslims (India). ‘Islamic art’ embraces art forms such as architecture, architectural

decoration, ceramic art, faïence mosaics, lusterware, relief sculpture, wood and ivory

carving, friezes, drawing, painting, calligraphy, book-gilding, manuscript illumination, lac-

quer-painted bookbinding, textile design, metalworking, gold smithery, and gemstone

carving, amongst others. Historically, Islamic art has developed from a wide variety of dif-

ferent sources and cultures as well as religions. It includes elements from Greek and early

1 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O4-Islamicart.html
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Art#cite_ref-1
Islamic Art

Christian art which it combines with the great Middle Eastern cultures of Egypt, Byzantium,

and Persia, along with far eastern cultures of India and China 3

Before the invasion of the Sassanid empire nomadic Arab tribes' artistic production

was centred on small scale portable items like jewellery, pottery, weapons, riding equip-

ment, ceremonial ornaments, etc. The items are described as being aniconic; that is that

the decorative designs were focused on vegetation and geometric patterns rather than hu-

man or animal figures.

There are claims that Islam, forbids images4, but it has regardlessly been done count-

less times within different branches of Islam and in different periods. However, there is

evidence of religious art work depicting people including Muhammad 5, animals, religious

leaders and mythology. There are Haddiths which argue against the production and depic-

tion of human form, arguing that only God can create a perfect image and that the artist

cannot bring things to life but only God can. As with Haddiths it must be noted that the two

major branches of Islam follow different Haddiths; one is from the caliphates and the other

from imams, hence as such claim to such a tenant has nothing to do with the original Qur-

anic scripture. There is a view by certain fractions within Arab dominated Islam that reflect

negatively on artistic expression except when it is expressed in a aniconic way. However,

no issues of this kind arises in other predominantly Muslim nations such as Turkey and

Iran which do not have a strong aniconic artistic expression. The next problem is that there

is no overall hegemony in Muslim societies nor a singular perception in religion, but rather

a cultural affiliation that is divided into sects and ethnic groups. However there does not

seem to be anything in the Quran that prohibits art nor does Quran issues any guidelines

to art forms. As an illustration to this claim, an example is seen in the words of Husn,

3 http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/islamic-art.htm
4 17th of September 2005 Danish newspaper ran a series of cartons of Muhammad, the riots that soon followed was not
so much as the image itself but the attack and put down of Muslims and Muhammad.
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
Islamic Art

Jamal and Zeenah on beauty and aesthetics - while no guidelines are given, it is clearly

mentioned that art is to be enjoyed: Qur'an 7:13 “O children of Adam, attend your embel-

lishment...” The word embellishment can also mean beauty, for in Arabic it is zeena takum.

Another reference to beauty is Yusuf Ali 20:8 “God, there is no god but He! To him belong

the most beautiful names”. There are multiple references in the Qur'an on beauty:16:6,

16:8, 33:52, 37:6; the images: 34:13, and so on.

Another issue to focus on is the spread of Islam and the first territories that became

Muslim. The first were the Sassanians whose artistic expression is based on figural art

works while at the same time producing a vast amount of textiles and metal works in which

aniconic is also expressed in production of artefacts. Art in the Muslim world became sep-

arated from artistic production and moved into the secular sacred sphere, separating reli-

gious art and local and secular art in the most simplistic definition.

The typical example of ‘Islamic’ art like the exterior tile of geometric form and the in-

terior crown and vine mosaics found at the dome of the rock (a scared place to Muslims) to

the Mihrab tiles found in Isfahan are aniconic in form and depict no human forms.

In addition to this there are the palaces and luxury goods found throughout the Muslim

world produced specifically for secular consumption and usage. While many palaces and

luxury goods used aniconic art form, there are depictions of animals and people in luxury

items and in mosques throughout Iran and its former territories in Central Asia, the Caucus

South Asia, Arabia and Turkey. So now the issue that arises is that if ‘Islamic’ art is an-

iconic as a matter of a rule, why then can we find non aniconic art works, textiles, metal

works, etc., on and in mosques, poetry, books, and in all kinds of artefacts? Furthermore,

the Persian love poetry is illustrated with paintings of its protagonists as well as images of

the hunter and hunted and so forth. While there seems no crossover of figurative images
Islamic Art

in the so called ‘sacred’ art of Islam6 this distinction is often ignored by Western scholars

as there is secular and illustrated religious text depicting Muhammad, Ali, Jesus and Hus-

sain based on the history of the world rather than Islam or its text. To claim that there is no

figurative representation in ‘Islamic art’ is mnemonic when taking in the territorial extent of

the Muslim world and diversity of cultures, languages and people who produced art. To il-

lustrate the crossover from this idealised sacred and secular art in Islam is this website of

images of religious figures in Islam7.

What we also see is that secular books do depict human and animal forms – albeit

mainly Turkish and Persian works - including religious figures. An example of this is the

book Universal History or History of the World by Rashid al-Din, published in Iran in 1307

A.D. this book is also known as Jami Tawarikh, which literally means Compendium of

Chronicles (its significance is that it shows the acceptability for images of Muhammad), de-

picts Muhammad, Adam and Eve etc, while the Koran has none of these images they are

found nevertheless in the Muslim world and are still part of the mass generalised categor-

isation of ‘Islamic’ art.

Moreover, by using the term such as ‘Islamic art’ there is an implicit assumption that

the Muslim world and societies are united, and this claim cannot be substantiated. This is

because of the divisions in language, ethnicity, social politics, society, art, and politics is

vast. Since the cold war ended it seems that Muslim countries have taken on in some

ways the role of the Eastern Bloc in how they are categorised and viewed. However, unlike

the Eastern block there is no ideological hegemony or unity in the Islamic world. An article

in the New York times “Muslims won’t play together” by Efraim Karsh (who is the head of

the Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King’s college in London and the author of

“Islamic Imperialism: A History" and the forthcoming “Palestine Betrayed.”) talked about

6 Depending on a set period of time it was created in and on who was ruling, and on who was the
patron of the art work
7 http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Islamic Art

the divisions in the Muslim world, questioning the term ‘Islamic’ and its loose usage and

further elaborating on how the perceived hegemony crumbles in the light of divisions

between the Arab world and Iranians.

Thus, for example, not only do Arabs consider themselves superior to

all other Muslims, but inhabitants of Hijaz, the northwestern part of

the Arabian Peninsula and Islam’s birthplace, regard themselves the

only true Arabs, and tend to be highly disparaging of all other Arabic-

speaking communities. (Karsh 2010)

As well as by raising an issue of Arab claim to supremacy, Karsh also explored the

phenomenon of Muslim states making alliances with non-Muslim states to fight another

Muslim State. There are various examples of this: the Iran-Iraq war in which Saddam

bought weapons from the USA, and Iran from the USA and Israel, their so-called 'en-

emies'. Also, there is an example of Azerbaijan-Armenia war that occurred after the col-

lapse of the USSR, in which Russia and Iran supported and aided Armenia, while Turkey

backed the Republic of Azerbaijan which is predominately Shi'ite Muslims.

This pattern of pragmatic cooperation reached its peak during the

19th century, when the Ottoman Empire relied on Western economic

and military support to survive. (The Charge of the Light Brigade of

1854 was, at its heart, part of a French-British effort to keep the Otto-

mans from falling under Russian hegemony.) It has also become a

central feature of 20th and 21st century Middle Eastern politics. (Karsh

2010).
Islamic Art

Karsh’s article “Muslims won’t play together” also focused on the recent attempt by

Muslim states to kick-start the ‘Islamic’ games in response to the Olympics. This attempt

failed even before it happened due to the disagreements between Muslim states. Benedict

Anderson talks about nationhood in his book “Imagined Communities” (2006 revised). The

issue with the Islamic world is that Nationhood only existed between mainly two major

powers, the Ottomans and the Persians which where multiethnic and religious. Since the

collapse of these two empires the Muslim world and Middle East have been even more di-

vided with nation states which were created recently by mainly Britain and France.

The third corner of the multicultural triangle is religion for two reas-

ons. Religion can sound absolute, and it can serve as a translation

for all manner of perceived group conflict. (Bauman 1999, p.21)

Since we now know of the division of nationhood, linguistic and cultural divisions in the

Muslim world, the term ‘Islamic’ seems as inadequate as the term ‘Soviet’ or ‘Communist’

which were formerly used in categorising a vast number of people and cultures. One of the

points brought out in the book “Visibly Muslim: fashion, politics, faith” by Emma Tarlo

(2010) is that although there is no hegemony in the Muslim world of dress codes, there is a

unified sense of the veil, and what is acceptable in one Muslim society might not be the

case in another. “There is no such thing as a clear-cut category of Muslim dress. Muslims

around the world wear a huge range of different garments, many of which relate to local

regional traditions than religious and some of which are not particularly associated with

either.” (Tarlo 2010 p.5) This example of no unifying or hegemony in dress codes or wear
Islamic Art

of Muslim women can also be used in describing art work from different Muslim societies

and ethnic groups.

Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom in their article “The Mirage of Islamic Art: Re-

flections on the study of unwieldy field” in the Art Bulletin March 2003 volume Lxxxv num-

ber 1, stated that the definition and historiography of ‘Islamic’ art is “generally held to be

‘art made by artists of artisans whose religion was Islam, for patrons who lived in predom-

inantly Muslim lands, or for the purpose that are restricted or peculiar to a Muslim popula-

tion of a Muslim setting” (p.152). Now with the early exploration into definition this term of

‘Islamic’ seems to marginalise the non-Muslim population in Muslim nations.

The problem with the definition given by Blair and Bloom (2003) is that according to

the Quran, no person, people or religious community can claim a permanent right of pos-

session over any territory. "Say: 'O God, King of the kingdom (1), Thou givest the kingdom

to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest;

Thou endowest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou

pleasest: all the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things.'"(2) [Qur'an

3:26].

Therefore the issue is that the term used to define ‘Islamic’ art as art in lands that are

predominantly Muslim is inadequate since there is much art produced by non-Muslims for

non-Muslims or art work produced by non Muslims for Muslims. The other side of this coin

is the Western definition of land and territory and the term being used to generalise and

oversimplify an area that was predominately influenced by other cultures, such as Persian

and Turkish.

The integrity of states was seen as an antidote to empire building, to

the hegemonic reach across the oceans and continents to recover

Islamic Art

lost splendours of the ancient world in another, more technologically

advanced, form. (Niezen 2003, p.131)

The model for Nationhood by Anderson (2006) while being a good model for Latin

America and in a minor degree probably applicable to the Muslim nations falls short of en-

compassing the form of modern nationalism or the rise of vernacular languages and dia-

lects of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish languages as well as the old civilisations of the past,

while Latin America is relatively new, the Middle East isn’t.

The ‘discourse of art’ as ‘conflict of interest’ is also a discourse em-

bedded within the Guggenheim’s own institutional history and curat-

orial politics. Within the context of the broader uses of full disclosure,

these discourses reference real social and economic interests that

were as much part of museum politics thirty years ago as they are

today. (Rectanus 2002. p.15)

The other point is the definition of art itself. One then wonders how ‘Islamic’ art

breeches the definition of art. If we try to give art a clear and comprehensive definition then

we would have to disregard the philological and etymological origin that it draws from. The

confusion of thought is that human activities would not be embraced and would be

severely limited in restricting art by a term of division which will limit itself by the imposed

categorisation and lose all concept of meaning if restricted. This construct of ‘Islamic’ art

as a categorisation is a reflection on the twentieth and twenty-first century in its construc-

tion of ‘tradition’ in a body of works and buildings in a variety of cultures in an integral way
Islamic Art

that endows early works - through a concept of crossing off cultures - with a generalised

terminology eliminating the historicity of past and other cultures. (Reiman 2001)

There are two overlapping modes for characterising any entity as au-

thentic: genealogical or historical (‘origin’) and identity or correspond-

ence (‘content’). Authentic objects, persons, and collectives are ori-

ginal, real, and pure; they are what they purport to be, their roots are

known and verified, their essence and appearance are one. (Lind-

holm 2008 , p.2)

This categorised definition of ‘Islamic’ art as a chronological continuum has discour-

aged and marginalised trans-historical comparisons, creating a historiography in which the

diversity and contribution of different groups - though not separated by ethnicity or nation-

ality - with different periods. “Religion can sound absolute, that is, it can be made to sound

as if it determines objective and unchangeable differences between people.” (Bauman

1999, p.21) which brings an absolute and no separation, it doesn’t give the vital voice and

status that separates art of different religions and periods, making it opaqued by linear and

compartmentalised narratives in which the art is read in a religious context rather than an

expression of historical imperative or a dynamic aesthetic experience that was susceptible

to recreation and re signification. (Reiman 2001)

For the Umayyads, the Muslims who ruled in the multicultural capital

of Cordoba from the eighth century to the eleventh century, the con-

struction of a mosque in 785 A.D. was linked to the formation of iden-

tity. It meant the creation of a building that would set their faith apart
Islamic Art

from that of the important Christian and Jewish populations who they

ruled. (Dodds 2007, P.350)

Some Historians have attempted to solve the issue that arises with the relationship

between the religion of Islam and art that has been made for religious purpose i.e. a

mosque or patterns on the Qur’an, prayer carpets etc. However the issue arises particu-

larly with definition of ‘Islamic’ art when it is used on non-religious art work. The issue with

what is dubbed secular ‘Islamic art’ is that secular culture differed in region and area, and

has an issue with neologism that has both a widespread acceptance and condemnation.

Rather, most scholars tacitly accept that the convenient if incorrect

term ‘Islamic’ refers not just to the religion of Islam but the larger cul-

ture in which Islam was a dominant - but not sole - religion practised.

Although it looks similar, ‘Islamic art’ is therefore not comparable to

such concepts as ‘Christian’ or ‘Buddhist’ art, which are normally un-

derstood to refer specifically to religious art. (Blair and Bloom 2003

p.153)

That is to say that Christian art does not include all of Europe nor does it include art

from the fall of Rome to the Reformation. It also excludes various sects of Christianity such

as the Orthodox for their art work is referred to as Orthodox Christian art and not in the

mass general term but a separate category in itself, etc. Buddhist art does not encompass

all of Asia or the art works produced in Asia, between the Chinese, Thai or the Kushans

and Kyoto. This is an important distinction which is overlooked when looking at definitions

given to ‘Islamic art‘ (Blair and Bloom 2003).

Islamic Art

Canclini 1995 stated that the “Ontological correspondence between

reality and representation, between society and the collections of

symbols that represent it. What is defined as patrimony and identity

claims to be the faithful reflection of the national essence.” (p.110)

So then what is ‘Islamic art’? According to Blair and Bloom 2003, “Islamic ‘art’ is gener-

ally taken to encompass everything from the enormous congregational mosques and lux-

ury manuscripts commissioned by powerful rulers from great architects and calligrapher-

painters to inlaid metalwares, intricate carpets produced by anonymous urban craftsman

and nomad women.” (p.153). This study of ‘Islamic art’ which entails inlaid metalworks,

glass, textiles, carpets, pottery etc., are not viewed according to Western thought as such

works are called handicrafts and are considered minor and decorative works of art. Archi-

tecture in Asia and Europe was just as important to Muslim societies but the visual repres-

entation in architecture changes – sculptures, for example, are rare in Muslim societies. So

the term ‘Islamic art’ serves as a misnomer for basically everything and everywhere. It

does not denote even any given period of time, school, dynasty, movement or region. It is

a visual culture that has roots in a particular region of a particular time and a period when

whoever the leader was and his espoused religion - as a patron of art - that would commis-

sion, celebrate or restrict art and all that it encompasses.

Every group wants to differentiate itself and affirm its identity makes

tacit or hermetic use of identification codes that are fundamental to

internal cohesion and to protect itself from strangers. (Canclini 1995,

p.111)
Islamic Art

The field and study of ‘Islamic art’ history is relatively new. The view on the Muslim

world, in Benedict Anderson's 1983 book Imagined Communities stated that “...take only

the example of Islamic: if Maguindanao met Berbers in Mecca, knowing nothing of each

others languages, incapable of communicating orally, they nonetheless understood each

others ideographs, because the sacred text they shared existed only in classical Arabic.”

(p.13). While this is a simplified vision, the sacred text that unites all Muslims is the Qur’an

written in classical Arabic even if the Muslim society did not understand it nor was it their

vernacular language. This does not apply well to art, which is what the category of ‘Islamic

art’ is attempting to do.

If narration is the art of weaving convincing connections between dis-

parate events and characters, the body is the center of the narrative

strategies established in the visual arts, as the site of sensorial ex-

perience that permits the construction and reconstruction of mean-

ings in these works. (Reiman 2001. p.53)

This misnomer category of ‘Islamic art’ as stated is relatively new, which reminds me of

the book The Invention of Tradition edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (1983)

in which traditions in Britain are explored only to discover their relative newness and inven-

tion. “ ‘Invented tradition’ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly

or tactically accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate cer-

tain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity

with the past. In fact, where possible, the normally attempt to establish continuity with a

suitable historic past.” (p.1) I found that this quote works well when referring to calling
Islamic Art

something ‘Islamic art’ when dealing with non-religious art (secular) and giving it the same

category as religious art.

The integrity of states was seen as an antidote to empire building, to

the hegemonic reach across the oceans and continents to recover

lost splendors of the ancient world in another, more technologically

advanced, form. (Niezen 2003, p.131)

Bringing the issue of the usage and term ‘Islamic art’ to an end, there is no clear hege-

mony nor homogeny in the Muslim world. Therefore it develops a problematic issue with

defining art of different periods that stem from Iran, Turkey, India, Central Asia and Arab

countries as ‘Islamic art’ that has its own set rules and a hegemonic structure to how it is

appropriated and interpreted.

The issue of an official culture shared by people of various faiths and ethnicity who live

in lands controlled by Muslims or under Muslim leadership, being one because of their

shared geography, language, ethnicity, and so on, brings the delusion and assumption that

because they were subject to Muslims politically and economically, that there is an accre-

tion that their art must also represent Islam.

The West's fascination with the Middle East, stories of romance and poetry of the re-

gion as well as philosophy and theologians has often been wrongfully categorised as Ar-

abic in origin. This is no different for the Persian words entering Europe via the Ottoman

empire or into English from India. This mislabelling and incorrect categorisation seems out

of place. Nor is there a conscious move to correct this mislabelling of definitions by

Muslims, Arabs etc. Certainly in the United Kingdom there has been even a passive criti-
Islamic Art

cism of this move. One assumes that ethnic identification and religious identification are

sometimes similar and varied with multidimensionality to how one identifies with it.

Religious identification is as effective as committing to an identity that one identifies

with regardless of actual level of religious belief, culture or ethnicity. One can be secular,

orthodox or non-religious and still be identified to a group such as Muslim, or can feel con-

nected to other Muslims or the history of Islam. So some Muslims use this label to signify a

heritage and community association and affiliation to an idea of hegemony rather than that

of religious belief; for example a Shia or Sunni would unite though they differ in religious

doctrine.

...the ordered disposition of a series of works that capture different

aspects of the experience of memory, each complementing the an-

guish produced by the other. The conceptual character of maps,

mapping as an impulse to order and control rather than objective de-

scription... (Reiman 2001, p.59)

The fictional forms of history, in the sense that it highlights as underlining of subjecting

in its narrative constructing forcing subtly the public and art work itself an invented cultural

mythology. Amongst this is the cultural, racial continuity in Islam and Muslim countries, in

essence homogenising an idea of cultural and ethnic purity, particularly in the Middle East

represented by articulating the historiographical treatment of art in the Muslim world. (Re-

iman 2001)

Thus the marginalisation of the ‘other’ in the category and definition of ‘Islamic art’ be-

comes bias and leaves out another part of the population. As Reiman's statement ex-

plains, there is an order in society and works produced within that society capture aspects

of different experiences one has within that society. The geographical differences, ethnic
Islamic Art

groups, history, art work and literary works are left out with a term like “Islamic art” ignoring

the diversity of the region and multitude societies within it. Their unique histories are alien-

ated, downplayed and ignored thus and their individuality assimilated into an imagined col-

lective. Particularly when the essence of anthropological theory does not validate an all en-

compassing term like ‘Islamic art’ due to the fact that the very core of anthropology is

about definitions and classifications, as well as in pointing out the differences and com-

monality between cultures. While anthropology generates and perpetuates stereotypes, it

also seems that by inventing and using a term like ‘Islamic art’ we are also inventing false

constructs that have implications on creating an imagined perception on history and soci-

ety.
Islamic Art

Work Cited

Anderson, Benedict 1983. Imagined communities. 2006 revised edition. London: Verso

Baumann, Gerd. 1999. The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking national, Ethnic, and Religious

Identities. London: Routledge

Ernst, Carl W. 2003. Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World.

UNC Press Books.

Dodds. D. Jerrilynn. 2007. Blackwell Anthologies in Art History: Late Antique and Medieval

Art of the Mediterranean World. edited by Eva R. Hoffman. Oxford: Blackwell Publish-

ing.

Efraim Karsh, February 27, 2010. The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/

2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html

Hobsbawn Eric, and Terence Ranger 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Univer-

sity of Cambridge: Press Syndicate

García Canclini, Néstor. 1995. Hybrid Cultures. Strategies for Entering and Leaving

Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Lindholm, Charles. 2008. Culture and Authenticity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Niezen, Ronald. 2003. The Origins of Indigenism: Human rights and politics of Identity.

Berkley: University of California Press

Ramírez, Mari Carmen. 1996. ‘Brokering Identities’. In: Greenberg, Reesa, Bruce W.

Ferguson, and Sandy Nairne (eds), Thinking about Exhibitions. London: Routledge.

p.21-38

Rectanus, Mark W. 2002. Culture incorporated: Museums, Artists, and Corporate Sponsor-

ship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Rectanus, Mark W. 2007. ‘Globalization: Incorporating the Museum’. In: Sharon Macdon-

ald (ed.), A companion to museum studies. London: Wiley-Blackwell. p.382-397.

Islamic Art

Reiman, Karen Cordero. 2001. The Effects of the Nation: Mexican Art in an Age of Global-

ization. Edited by Carl Good and John V. Waldron. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press. p.53-72

Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom. 2003 “The Mirage of Islamic Art: Reflections on the

study of unwieldy field”. Art Bulletin. March. Volume LXXXV number. 1.

Tarlo, Emma. 2010. Visibly Muslim: Fashion, Politics, Faith. Oxford: Berg