Talk:Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Content has been added to this page (most of the last paragraph) which seems to unnecessarily repeat the previous content. I'm not sure it adds any new relevant information, apart from perhaps the last couple sentences, which I think are arguable points (e.g. Bihzad's "naturalism" in his figures, considering that he often quoted figures verbatim from earlier works by other artists). If no one has a good reason it should stay, I will delete the paragraph, or else its new content should be merged with the rest of the entry.
Thanks.
Richard Tapestry 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the above mentioned edits, including incorporating a couple sentences about his naturalism into the second paragraph. Please do feel free to add any new info or descriptions of his style, just preferably within the main body of the existing text.
Richard Tapestry 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I recently edited the Career and Style section and added a book (Grabar) to the list of references. I thought I had also placed notes about my addition, but I apparently did not save it properly. I am not an academic, but an artist with a serious interest in Kamal ud-Din Behzad . I disagreed with a statement that his work is mostly geometric, though it clearly proceeds from the use of architectural geometry which preceded it, so provided more context to his use of geometric forms.. I tried to be precise in capturing some of the ways that Behzad's work distinguishes itself from other Persian miniaturists. Booktrout (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Booktrout, thanks for your well-written fleshing out of the article. I agree with much of what you say, although in terms of the use of geometric forms, I don't believe it said that his work was 'mostly' geometric but rather that 'This style is highly geometric in design', which I do believe is true, among other important qualities that you mention. There is a significant article on this subject by Sarah Chapman - “Mathematics and Meaning in the Structure and Composition of Timurid Miniature Painting”, Persica, Vol. XIX, 2003, pp. 33-68. She explores the ways in which Behzad and other Timurid artists built on elaborate and carefully plotted geometrical structures underlying their works (which structures are often obscured to the naked eye beneath other compositional layers). There is an emerging consensus that these structures are essential to the composition and decoding of Behzad's work. I agree about his mastery at moving the eye of the observer through the picture plane, but I think that there is very strong evidence that it isn't a particularly quirky flow (at least not an unplanned one - his work does often have a quirky character) but is rather based on a carefully plotted use of geometry (as well as space), which is not only used in the architecture but which in fact all the elements (including the human, animal, and natural figures) play into and point out.
That said, this is academically a small field in which the relevant research and publication is constantly emerging and being revised, so it's a bit difficult to pin down what exactly is appropriate for an encyclopaedia article (which is supposed to reflect consensus). I do think some mention of all this would be appropriate though. I may try to revise the article to this effect, but I welcome your input before or after I do so.
Cheers!
Richard Tapestry (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Richard Thanks for the feedback on my additions and for the reference to the article. I agree that the artist's control of eye movement is very deliberate and precise. I remember getting a book from the library many years ago which showed how spirals were used in Persian art, along which key focal areas were arranged. I think it would be very informative and helpful to include a summary of current thinking about this and maybe an example or 2 of these formal devices. I wonder if this might also be entered in the general heading of "Persian Miniatures". I will say something about such things as an artist; which is that one feels such devices are meant to function subliminally, to be felt as a cohering force more than a defining formality. Do you know if the story of the artist blinding himself in Pahmuk's book has historic or ancient literary sources, or is it pure invention?
I am currently starting work on a large fused glass bowl project based mostly on Persian painting which you can see here on a still hidden page of my website if you have any interest: [1] booktrout--216.114.172.18 (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I would like to read the article from Persica but 14 Euros for an article is a bit steep for me. booktrout --Booktrout (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
