New Art Examiner
January 1983

Arts from the Ottoman Empire, 16,17th Centuries
David & Alfred Smart Gallery
by Claire Wolf Krantz

The fall exhibit at the David and Alfred Smart Gallery was a comprehensive, informative display of the arts produced in the Ottoman Empire during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This travelling survey originated at the Leighton House in London and was presented here in cooperation with the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. The exhibit contains a large number and variety of decorative objects, including fine examples of ceramics, metalware, textiles, painting and calligraphy from the peak of the civilization's cultural and military power. Yet the stylistic unity and coherent method of presentation makes the show both comprehensible and fascinating. The show is interesting to us today not only for its esthetic pleasure, but for the issues it raises about what relationship the arts should have to culture and what actually constitutes serious art. Particularly interesting in this show is that it contains a vital and energetic art, which was both an integral part and an expression of its cultural system; it never existed in opposition to its society.

In the Ottoman Empire, as in other non-Western and pre-modern cultures, decorative and fine arts were not considered separate. The culture made no distinction between tile value of functional objects and art for its own sake. Ottoman art was controlled in every aspect by the ruling class and disseminated by them to the popular markets and to the provinces. Although the government of the Ottomans was basically bureaucratic, religious, and militaristic, the arts were nonetheless a part of the everyday activity of the Court, a combination rare in the Western world, but common in the East.

A tightly organized guild system controlled every aspect of the manufacture and sales of the arts. It was overseen by the sultan's court through the licensing of the guilds; the selection, training and promotion of the artists, based on merit, and the location of workshops in or near the palace in Istanbul as well as other major centers in cities such as Iznik and Bursa. This close connection between the court and artistic production had enormous benefits for the arts. The sultans and their entourages were often highly educated patrons, themselves trained as artisans and artists, and considered quite capable of making competent judgments. Moreover, they were willing to pay the cost of the high quality work, which they demanded, guaranteeing a steady production of superb objects and the steady employment of favored artists and artisans.

Each type of object, such as a velvet tapestry, .was made by members of a separate guild. Sometimes many guilds cooperated in tile production of one multidisciplinary object, as in the case of an illustrated book. All of the designs for all of the products would be based on the work from one guild, that of the Nakkashane, the Imperial designers. The Nakkashance produced drawings, paintings, topographical drawings, edicts, Imperial monograms - all the work of the Empire that appeared on paper, either as a final product or a design to be later translated into surface decoration for other media. Therefore, all objects displayed common characteristics which were the hallmark Of Ottoman art. The stylization of motifs, for example. was clearly recognizable, no matter what the product. There would always be a consistency and coherence of design and craftsmanship, no matter how many guilds were involved in the production of a single piece. Since the basic creative design was already formulated by the Nakkashane, and each craftsman could concentrate on the articulation of the idea, an extremely high degree of quality could then be maintained in the production of each piece. A leather worker, for example, was paid and promoted on the basis of how well he was judged by the guild to have performed his craft, not on the basis of any innovation or development of design. The resulting unity and quality of work can be seen in every aspect of the exhibit. This tightly organized system, combined with the necessity of the sultan's patronage, therefore, discouraged innovation, without ever overtly suppressing it. Stylistic energv and variety was a product of the gradual evolution of change and variation rather than of deliberate innovation.

This exhibition emphasized another important aspect of Ottoman art: the formalization of particular motifs which were then repeated in numerous variations on tile different objects. There are five major styles, named and described by the curators of the show. Once isolated, one can follow them in their infinite changes and permutations throughout the show. They are: the arabesque, the "saz leaf and rosette," the "Abraham of Kutahyn,” the “quatre fleurs,” and the “plain style,” The “plain style” exists as a base for the other four, in that it rests on the form of the objects themselves. The other four styles are based on surface decoration which may or may not obliterate or obscure the underlying forms.

Some of the motifs incorporated into all five styles included the tulip, cloud scroll, palmette, cintamenti or “crescent pearls," and "Tugras," or monograms of the sultans. For religious reasons human forms could not be used in art. These motifs were influenced by the far- flung conquests of the Ottomans, whose empire ranged from Europe to North Aftica through the Near East and who assimilated these motifs and made them their own. The original nomadic Turkish cultural base supported Byzantine, North African, Persian, Islamic, Chinese, and European ideas and styles. Artists and artisans had direct access to foreign artwork and architecture, acquired through conquest, trade and gifts to the sultans, as well as through a free interchange with visiting foreign artists.

This mingling of various motifs and styles can be seen clearly in the paintings and calligraphy found in books, topological drawings, edicts, and other documents on display. Since Ottoman painting is narrative and informational, calligraphy and painting are often combined on one page, interweaving their use as form, decoration and information.The variety and beauty of the books is impressive, combining intellectual and sensual elements. As in all of Ottoman art, their books exemplify the unity of a cultural attitude towards the arts and the myriad function which the arts embodied.

The show has a special relevance to the art community today. Historically, the art of the Ottoman Empire developed out of a medieval system somewhat similar to ours. During the Renaissance, however, the two systems diverged. We are now questioning the assumptions that have developed in the West since the Renaissance. Today, as we re-evaluate our relationship to our Western heritage, a look at an alternate, fully developed art based on a totally different tradition can be extremely valuable. Contrary to our traditions, Ottoman culture made no value distinction between art and craft, intellect and emotion, idea and beauty. Males were dominant in Ottoman arts, as they were in the west, yet their arts were highly decorative, as they were in the male dominated arts of the East and of Central Asia - revealing the idea that decoration and crafts are necessarily feminine as a Western prejudice. Even though we glorify individualism and genius in the arts, groups of artists in our culture tend to make objects that resemble each other stylistically. A group of neo-expressionistic paintings hung together in a show, for example, could be experienced as variations on a theme much as one experiences the objects in the Ottoman exhibit. In this context, the art of the Ottomans, if not their way of thinking, may become more accessible. Their system of collective creation, based on the designs of a limited number of artists producing a limited number of acceptable motifs, and on a system of production which to our way of thinking would seem repressive, produced an eye-opening variety of artwork, in an impressive number of expressive media.

The romantic, western view of artists as dissidents – of the role of the arts in general as separate from the general culture, providing a critical perspective – is certainly valid. Yet as the Ottomans have shown, it is not necessary in order to make the art of a culture energetic and vital.

This show, in addition to its narrative and historical interest ind its sheer sensual enjoyment, is a successful embodiment of a set of ideas different from those of our western heritage. Perused thoughtfully, it provides a basis, not necessarily of an alternative mode for us to emulate, but of ideas whereby we might enlarge or own view of that is possible for art to be.

Claire Wolf Krantz is a Chicago artist and writer and a regular contributer to the  New Art Examiner.

 

 

 

CLAIRE WOLF KRANTZ is a Chicago artist and writer and a regular contributor to the