I always wonder why this old Mughal art (that I think is the off shoot of Persian art) is so much two dimensional or flat in nature?
Was this consider an art technique or the artists in those days had not concept of isometric views or did not know how (or why) to draw a scene that has depth (as in dimension) ?
Maybe you artists people can help us non-artist people understand that.
http://www.paklinks.com/gsmedia/files/54200/mughal1.jpg
Re: No depth … why?
The flatness of space in these pieces is quite like of the Byzantine art or early christain art..
http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/philolog/Justinian.jpg
Byzantine Art originated during the 6th century AD. This art was conceived with the Greek Emperor Justinian�s rule and ended with the Iconoclastic Controversy that was initiated by the Emperor Leo the Isaurian during his rule in the 8th century AD.
In this period, holy icons were restored around the 9th century and continued until the capture of Constantinople in 1204 AD. At that time traditional cultural art forms such as architecture, music, poetry, and paintings were not considered “art.” Instead, each form of artistic expression independently evolved while being bound by rigid parameters that were doctrinally liturgical of that period.
From this thinking, the belief during that time was to consider church art forms as liturgical art. Therefore, the art form or icon symbolizing the Greek Orthodox Church did not represent any art of a particular religion or nationality of people, but rather that of a symbolic communion with God.
This is why when one examines a Byzantine icon, one is supposed to view a representation not of an animated, specific human art form, but of an image of flesh that is radiant with the divine light of God. In such an image, God�s spiritual glory is illustrated by mortal materials so that it can be viewed by mortal eyes. In this manner, everything that would remind a mortal human of flesh is contrary to the essence of the icon. Therefore, the logic held that a mortal painting of a saint could not be considered an icon because it presented the saint his secular state. Consequently, this belief is what sets such icons apart from other forms of pictorial art.
From this belief, liturgical art was man�s offering to God as well as God�s descent into mankind�s existence. Coupled with this belief was God�s descent into man�s physical existence such as grace intermixed into nature and eternity into time. Through this form of �church art� man able to visualize the existence of God. Naturally, the icon�s physical beauty (glory), as with the Holy Scriptures, provided mediums for man to learn about and, therefore, know God.
** Interestingly, the icons� physical beauty was not intended to stir human emotion.** Rather, it was tasked to guide human emotion and reason toward the spiritual path of transformation toward divinity. The beauty emitted and visible to mortal eyes was meant to be the purity of spirit in which the icon�s changes represented the future unity of the whole creation, or the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit. The icon represents divinity and grace, not human imperfection, sin and mortality. This is what humans were intended to see rather than the mere everyday, physical attributes that depict the icon.
Re: No depth … why?
For that matter .. even the old japanese art is very flat in nature …
so its was probably the style of the time ..it was artist’s way of giving significance to the whole painting rather than one object in the painiting …
Re: No depth ... why?
there is a lot of depth in this japnese print..
there is a two point perspective.. the angles of the wooden roof are perfect .. the water and then the structure in the background are receding in space/ getting smaller in size..
this objects aren't icosmetric like in the other examples//
the way the japnese prints feel flat in space is the use of 1 tone of color and lack of lighter hues that give the feeling of distance..
Re: No depth ... why?
You might be right ... the picture that I really wanted to post as an example of japanese art would be moved by you immediately ... with few warning points :)
Re: No depth ... why?
might be right' // well only if u open ur eyes and see the example u gave.. if ppretty self explanatory
Re: No depth ... why?
Styles of art changed, and instead of representing an ideal, allegorical figures, or simply conveying religiosity, art (in the sense of paintings/drawings, etc), transformed into something to entertain, instead of merely to educate.
Basically.
Re: No depth ... why?
"might be right' was an agreement with what you said .. maybe my words did not come out right ....
This thread is for me to understand this art form .. not to challenge any opinion
:)
Re: No depth ... why?
u can always ponder upon it.. there isnt an explaination given by some authority.. they werent just not able to do what ppl centuries ago had done... such as Greeks and Romans..(creating classic master pieces)
Maybe they wanted to look different than the greko roman idealistic and classic representation of the real... whatever that might be.. maybe it was a humble effort on their part to look ungodly.... something not close to what God had created.. in the mughal art.. it has always been the case becuase islam prohibits iconography.. in their eyes may be it was better to have paintings that looked unrealistic..
Re: No depth ... why?
maybe it was a humble effort on their part to look ungodly.... something not close to what God had created.. in the mughal art.. it has always been the case becuase islam prohibits iconography.. in their eyes may be it was better to have paintings that looked unrealistic..
Very well said ...
I thought of that too...
its maybe equivalent to chipping the nose of a human statue so it looks less human like
