2 Jun 2003 13:46
Ahmad Jabbari's commentary on the exhibition The Legacy of Genghi s Khan
This will be the last posting allowed on
this topic. If you wish to say more about it reply off
list.
=======================================================================
Please consider posting this. Thank you.
To: Middle East Librarians Association
Re: Ahmad Jabbari's commentary on the exhibition "The Legacy of
Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353" at LACMA
through July 27, 2003
I was deeply disappointed to read Ahmad Jabbari's somewhat narrow view of
the Legacy of Genghis Khan exhibition. His remarks included several factual
errors. To wit: 1) Iran was not invaded by "the three sons of Genghis
Khan." The first invasion, begun ca. 1219, was under the command of Genghis
Khan and his youngest son Tolui. In the next significant wave of the Mongol
invasions of Iran (and Iraq), in the 1250s, Hulegu, a grandson of Genghis
Khan, was in command. 2) There is surely no "paucity" of works of art from
the Ilkhanid period in the exhibition. Of the 206 catalogue entries, some
163 can be classified under the heading "Ilkhanid" with another 8, including
a ceramic tile, called "Golden Horde." 3) As just indicated the ceramics of
the Golden Horde are not "wholly absent." Indeed, given the fact that there
is relatively little high quality and well-preserved pottery from the Golden
Horde--by comparison with Ilkhanid ceramics, we naturally would have
included mostly Ilkhanid wares. 4) As to "many examples of pottery, painting
and metalwork" being excluded--of course this is so. An exhibition is not a
book. An exhibition involves complicated loan negotiations with numerous
institutions and costly shipping of often fragile objects. That we were even
able to bring together 163 Ilkhanid works of art from some 40 lending
institutions represents an enormous undertaking. 5) As to the quality of the
works in the exhibition--the vast majority are of the highest aesthetic
quality while others were chosen for reasons of historical or archaeological
importance.
Finally, the crux of Mr. Jabbari's problem with the exhibition has to do
with its title. We have made no attempt to deny the enormous destruction and
loss of human life that occurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the
Mongol invasions in the 13th century, however, the title "The Legacy of
Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353" seems to
us to describe what the exhibition is about. The word "legacy"--meaning
something handed down, clearly has to do with the aftermath of the Mongol
invasions, which led, by the third quarter of the 13th century, to a period
of great creativity and experimentation that would resonate not only in Iran
but in Ottoman Turkey and Mughal India. I know that Mr. Jabbari's field is
not the history of art (political science as I recall) and it is simply
wrong to say that the impact of the Mongol invasions on Iranian art was
limited to "a few Chinese inspired motifs." It is much more--just in terms
of the arts of the book this period marks the introduction of landscape, a
new concept of space, the institutionalization of politically motivated
patronage, documentation for the establishment of ateliers, evidence of
drawings on paper, and so on. This is not to say that great art was not
produced in Iran before the Mongol invasions but that something quite
different is produced after BY Iranian artists FOR Mongol patrons and
invigorated by the influx of new ideas and techniques from throughout Asia
and beyond.
I cannot help but think that the views expressed in Mr. Jabbari's commentary
were not informed by a thoughtful visit to the exhibition or even a careful
reading of a broad range of recent historical and art historical
publications on the Ilkhanid period, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to the
name Genghis Khan. I wonder if Mr. Jabbari had similar objections to the
title of the exhibition held at LACMA in 1990 on late 14th and 15th-century
Iranian art--Timur and the Princely Vision. Surely he is aware that
historical accounts credit Timur's invasion of the Iranian world (and that
of his sons and grandsons) as being equal in all respects to that of the
Mongols.
Yours truly,
Linda Komaroff, PhD
Curator of Islamic Art and
Department Head, Ancient and Islamic Art
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
=======================================================================
Please consider posting this. Thank you.
To: Middle East Librarians Association
Re: Ahmad Jabbari's commentary on the exhibition "The Legacy of
Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353" at LACMA
through July 27, 2003
I was deeply disappointed to read Ahmad Jabbari's somewhat narrow view of
the Legacy of Genghis Khan exhibition. His remarks included several factual
errors. To wit: 1) Iran was not invaded by "the three sons of Genghis
Khan." The first invasion, begun ca. 1219, was under the command of Genghis
Khan and his youngest son Tolui. In the next significant wave of the Mongol
invasions of Iran (and Iraq), in the 1250s, Hulegu, a grandson of Genghis
Khan, was in command. 2) There is surely no "paucity" of works of art from
the Ilkhanid period in the exhibition. Of the 206 catalogue entries, some
163 can be classified under the heading "Ilkhanid" with another 8, including
a ceramic tile, called "Golden Horde." 3) As just indicated the ceramics of
the Golden Horde are not "wholly absent." Indeed, given the fact that there
is relatively little high quality and well-preserved pottery from the Golden
Horde--by comparison with Ilkhanid ceramics, we naturally would have
included mostly Ilkhanid wares. 4) As to "many examples of pottery, painting
and metalwork" being excluded--of course this is so. An exhibition is not a
book. An exhibition involves complicated loan negotiations with numerous
institutions and costly shipping of often fragile objects. That we were even
able to bring together 163 Ilkhanid works of art from some 40 lending
institutions represents an enormous undertaking. 5) As to the quality of the
works in the exhibition--the vast majority are of the highest aesthetic
quality while others were chosen for reasons of historical or archaeological
importance.
Finally, the crux of Mr. Jabbari's problem with the exhibition has to do
with its title. We have made no attempt to deny the enormous destruction and
loss of human life that occurred as a direct or indirect consequence of the
Mongol invasions in the 13th century, however, the title "The Legacy of
Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256-1353" seems to
us to describe what the exhibition is about. The word "legacy"--meaning
something handed down, clearly has to do with the aftermath of the Mongol
invasions, which led, by the third quarter of the 13th century, to a period
of great creativity and experimentation that would resonate not only in Iran
but in Ottoman Turkey and Mughal India. I know that Mr. Jabbari's field is
not the history of art (political science as I recall) and it is simply
wrong to say that the impact of the Mongol invasions on Iranian art was
limited to "a few Chinese inspired motifs." It is much more--just in terms
of the arts of the book this period marks the introduction of landscape, a
new concept of space, the institutionalization of politically motivated
patronage, documentation for the establishment of ateliers, evidence of
drawings on paper, and so on. This is not to say that great art was not
produced in Iran before the Mongol invasions but that something quite
different is produced after BY Iranian artists FOR Mongol patrons and
invigorated by the influx of new ideas and techniques from throughout Asia
and beyond.
I cannot help but think that the views expressed in Mr. Jabbari's commentary
were not informed by a thoughtful visit to the exhibition or even a careful
reading of a broad range of recent historical and art historical
publications on the Ilkhanid period, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to the
name Genghis Khan. I wonder if Mr. Jabbari had similar objections to the
title of the exhibition held at LACMA in 1990 on late 14th and 15th-century
Iranian art--Timur and the Princely Vision. Surely he is aware that
historical accounts credit Timur's invasion of the Iranian world (and that
of his sons and grandsons) as being equal in all respects to that of the
Mongols.
Yours truly,
Linda Komaroff, PhD
Curator of Islamic Art and
Department Head, Ancient and Islamic Art
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
RSS Feed