A Comparative Study of Architectural Features in the Painting of Sultan Mohammad and Mir Musavvir from the Palaces Represented in Tahmasabi's Shahnameh

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Department of Architecture, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.

10.22070/negareh.2023.16858.3117

Abstract

The history of Islamic art and architecture of Iran has pictorial and visual documents, which have special and unique characteristics. One of these documents that can provide us with important information about the representation of past architectural spaces are miniatures. After the Herat period, the art of painting and miniature making was transferred to the Safavid sultans under the same conditions. In general, in Isfahan, the influence of European art was gradually felt in the court of Shah Abbas. This effectiveness was done in several ways: European works of art imported to Iran and direct contact with European artists living in Isfahan. In this way, the imaginary Iranian miniature painting was accompanied by a bright shadow and perspective and complete punctuation, and its objective and earthly aspect was overcome. In Safavid miniatures, the main theme is the glory and beauty of this period. The subjects of the miniatures are mostly centered around the courts of sultans, nobles, beautiful palaces, beautiful landscapes and scenes of wars. In order to understand and then to read the architectural spaces in the past based on these miniatures, it is necessary to first know the characteristics and principles governing them and then, using the principles governing the architectural space, to investigate how space is created in the works of the creators of this art. The Persian poetry and mysticism are widely known to be the main foundations of miniature painting.  The integration and use of miniature can be observed in masterpieces and significant manuscripts such as Shahnameh and Khamsa of Nizami. In some of these books similarities between the representation of created works, both in terms of subject and the type of images, are evident. These similarities are sometimes manifested with no change or alteration, while in some cases they are portrayed with hints of creativity. The realistic representations in accordance with the apparent features of object is not considered a sign of transcendence in Persian miniature, but alterations of the matter and going further beyond that, surpassing the outward layer and finding its reality are significant in the art of any artist. Thus, in general, the reality of creation by the painters is not measured with sight or other senses.
The purpose of the research is to represent the architectural features, including the structure of the architectural space and the elements used in the paintings of the palaces of Tahmasbi’s Shahnameh. In this regard, the research question is raised as follows: How is the structure of space and architectural elements represented in miniatures? The research method in this research is of descriptive-analytical type and information gathered in it is by using library and internet sources. The selection of images is based on the subject under study, i.e. the representation of architecture in palaces in the miniatures of Sultan Muhammad and Mir Musavvir from Tahmasbi's Shahnameh, and the findings were represented after they have been analyzed using qualitative analysis and tables. The necessity and importance of research is based on the fact that painting, as one of the main sources, can be effective in representation of architectural features. The findings of the research show that Iranian painters have depicted them by following the existing principles in Iranian architecture and knowingly, by using conventional miniatures methods. Also, they have tried to represent palaces in their pictures by using the principles in architecture, namely the spatial structure of architecture, which includes spatial orientation, hierarchy and fluidity of space, as well as architectural elements, which include integrated and decorative elements. Moreover, in terms of the difference between the ways of representing architecture in the miniatures of these two painters, there is the principle of fluidity of space and the principle of symbolism, both in the structure of space and in the architectural elements of palaces.

Keywords

References

ANSARI, M., & SALEH, E. (2012). Comparative Studies on Miniatures of Tabriz School and Iranian Gardens Architecture in Timurid and Safavid epochs. Negareh Journal, 7(22), 5-24.
Azhand, Yaghoub, School of painting in Tabriz, Qazvin and Mashhad. Thran, matnpub.
Balilan Asl, L, 2019. The Physical Structure Of Tabriz In Shah Tahmasp Safavid ’s Era Based On Matrakci Miniature. METU JFA 2019/2, 36:2 pp. 165-194.
Bidbarg, F., & Javanmardzadeh, A., & Shahbazi Shiran, H., & Bidbarg, M, (2019). Study Features of the Islamic Architecture of Azerbaijan during the Safavid period. Rahs, 3(13), 21-36.
Faghfoori, R., & Bolkhari Qehi, H. (2015). Appearance of safavid architecture in the Miniatures of Tabriz School. International Conference On Innovation and Research in
Arts and Humanities.
Foroutan, M. (2005). The Spatial Structure of Persian Architecture the Cognition of Persian Painters, Khial, 70-83.
Foroutan, M. (2010). Architectural Language of Persian Paintings (Survey of Persian Paintings as Historical Documents of Iranian Islamic Architecture). Hoviatshahr, 4(6), 131-142.
Ghasemi sichani, M., & Memareyan, G. (2010). Typology of Ghajar Era House in Isfahan. Hoviatshahr, 4(7), 87-94.
Ghasemzade, B, 2014. Framework- Architecture in Iranian Miniatures. European Review of Artistic Studies, vol 5, n 1, pp. 34-48.
Godarzi, M., & Keshavarz, G. (2007). Investigating the concept of time and space in Iranian painting. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 31(31),89-101.
Haghir, M. (2017). A comparative study of ChaharBagh school with illustrations of Shahnameh Tahmasebi. Supervisor: Mansoor Hessami, Advisor: Bahareh Taghavi nejad, M.A. Thesis, Sepehr Art University, Isfahan.
Haseli, P. (2007). Architectural aspect in painting, Ketabmah, 52-54.
Islami, S., & hosseini, Z. (2021). Explanation of the Connection between the Existence of the Sky in the Architecture and Painting of the Safavid Period from the Perspective of Areas of Human Life. Hoviatshahr, 15(2), 97-108.
Janipour, B., Mohammadi, N., & Rezaei Mir-ghaed, G. (2020). The Convergence of Persian Architecture with Miniature. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 17(90), 81-92.
Kafshchian Moghadam, A., & Yahaghi, M. (2012). Symbolic Elements in Persian Painting. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 8(19), 65-76.
Kazemi, M., & Shoarian Satari, V., & Sedigh Akbari, S. (2013). The concept of space in three paintings of Kamaluddin Behzad. Glory of Art (Jelve-y Honar) Alzahra Scientific Quarterly Journal, 4(2), 43-52.
Kheiri, S. (2008). Architecture and decorations of wooden columns of the Safavid period in Azerbaijan (Volume II). Tabriz, Mahdi Azadi Pub.
Kleiss, W, 1993. Safavid palaces, in: Gulru Necipoglu (ed.), Ars Orientalis, vol. 23, pp. 269-280.
Kleiss, W. (1993). Safavid palaces. Translation: Ehsan Tahmasbi. Golestan-e-honar, 11, 68-73.
Momeni, K. (2018). The Comparison between the Transparency Principle in the Form and Design of Safavid and Qajar Homes in Isfahan. Jria.; 6 (1), 22-42.
Mortazavi, L. (1400). Investigating the placement of human figures in relation to the building in a selection of Shahnameh paintings of Shah Tahmasabi. Supervisor: Ali Bozari, M.A Thesis, Art University, Tehran.
Naeima, G. (2017). The evolution of Iranian architecture during the Islamic period: from the Timurid period to the contemporary period (Volume 2). Tehran, Soroush-danesh.
Navai, K., & Haji Gassemi, K. (2011). Khest-o-Khial. Tehran, Soroush Publishing.
Oskoyi, A., & kiani, Z. (2020). Reproduction of the physical structure of Iranian garden in painting and carpets of the Safavid period. Journal of Urban Development and Architecture - Environment Identity (JUDA-EI), 1(4), 73-100.
Pakbaz, R. (2005). Iranian painting from ancient times to today. Tehran, Zarrin & Simin Pub.
Rajabi, M., & Esmaeli, A., & Aqaee, E., & Esbati, H. (2013). The Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasb. Tehran, Matn Publishers.
Razavi naia, M. (2018). Semiotic analysis of Isfahan School in urban
planning and Architecture. Urban Management, 50, 47-63.
Sarabi, M., Balilan, L., & Ajorloo, B. (2020). Architectural recreation of Hassan Padishah Mosque in Tabriz. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 25(1), 91-104. 
Soltanzade, H. (2008). Architectural and urban spaces in Iranian miniature. Tehran, 4tagh Pub.
Tavakoli, Z. (2015). A Study on the Status of Power in the Persian Paintings of Demoth Shahnameh and Homay & Homayoun with an Emphasis on the Elements of Nature and Architecture, Supervisors: Zeynab Saber & Shahab Shahidani, Advisor: Zohre Tabatabai, M.A. Thesis, Art University, Isfahan.
Tehrani, F., pourfathollah, M., & Ghasemi, Z. (2014). A Comparative Study of Methods for Creating Architectural Spaces in the Persian Illustrations of Bathhouses. Negareh Journal, 8(26), 61-72.
Teimouri Gorde, S., & Heidarnattaj, V. (2014). “Nazargah”, the main element of Persian garden in the illustration of the gar dens in Persian paintings. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 11(30), 15-26.
Vali Ahdi, M. S., & Soheili, J. (2017). Study of Symbolism Trend of Architectural Elements in the Painting “Khosro Listening to Barbad’s Music” from Peirce’s Semiotic Viewpoint. Islamic Art Studies, 13(26), 1-24.
Yazdan Panah, M., & Hatam, G., & Soltani, H. (). Investigation of the painting school of Tabriz during the Safavid period using the paintings of the Shahnameh of Shah Tahmasab. Ketabmahhonar, 143. 68-77
Zarei, A., shavakandi, M., hashemi, H., & koohestani, H. (2021). Common Concepts of Gardening in the Timurid and Safavid Period with Emphasis on Garden Pictures of Two Herat Schools and Tabriz Second School. Negarineh Islamic Art, 8(21), 20-35.
 
Negareh Journal
Volume 19, Issue 71
September 2024
Pages 161-180

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 October 2022
  • Revise Date: 18 February 2023
  • Accept Date: 23 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics