The Power Biennial
Competition of painters over quadruple capitals
In relation to the field of political power
Iman Afsarian
Source: Herfeh: Honarmand (Profession: Artist) Magazine, Vol.8, No.35, winter, 2011
Translation by: Roya Monajem
Introduction: the common prevalent conception regards painting as a solitary art where collective work does not have much influence on the existing relations in this sphere. In addition, the sacred halo of artists, make them like lonely ecstatic prophets, not moved or stirred by enchantments of the ordinary life. If we look at artists from Bourdieu’s view, however, the aforementioned sacred halos disappear and are replaced by a serious competition over multiple capitals. Although Bourdieu’s view is a reductionist, often ruthless approach, yet it does offer the possibility to explain and interpret numerous practices, changes and transformations in the world of art. By ignoring those halos, the present article is an attempt to look at the competition of modernist painters over symbolic, social, economic and cultural capitals and show how political social changes, practices and groupings in the past fifty years have influenced the competition between power fields within the sphere of painting and its relation with the field of ruling state power.
In this article Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of art fields is used as a reference to present a sociological analysis of painting in Iran. The hypothesis is that when there is an agreement and understanding in relation to the theory of art and its definition among various art fields and the government – as the main supporter of art in Iran – then, the fundamental competition takes place mainly over the cultural capital with the result that artworks are created with a higher quality. When there is no agreement or a common aim between these two fields, however, then the competition would take place over other capitals, where the definitions are more distinctly defined and there is more agreement over them, as in the cases of symbolic and social capitals.
Classification of artists:
The modernist visual artists have been recognized as an official group since 1958 when the first contemporary art biennial was held by the Ministry of Art and Culture of the time (Pakbaz, 2001, p.206). The given artists had struggled for ten years to achieve this goal and managed to exclude miniaturist semi-realist painters –Kamal-ol-Molk’s followers – from the official art scene. A survey of painting biennials reveals how the arrangement of artworks in the exhibition halls and the corresponding catalogues of each of these biennials reflected the changes taking place in the power fields both within the sphere of visual artists and also the power fields outside this sphere.
Like many other contemporary artists, visual artists saw themselves as intellectuals and social leaders in the path of modernizations, and they regarded art works as a means to define the historical position of the artists, and as a means to compensate many centuries of backwardness. Nevertheless, they have never adopted a distinct political position or the role of opposition, but merely participated in the biennials without any disputes or discords. The aim of artists appeared quite close to the goal of those holding these exhibitions: production of modern art with native features (ibid, p.206). Yet as much as it can be seen from the corresponding catalogues (1958-1966), the emphasis on nationalism both on the part of participants and those arranging the exhibitions was not as important as the modern quality of exhibited artworks. The evidence is the presence of many artworks in the catalogues published before the revolution which are devoid of any trace of national art signs and symbols, while non- modern works such as miniatures or semi-realist paintings do not appear in these books either.
This group of painters (the modernist painters of the first and second generations) together with the Ministry of Culture of the time, aligned with the policy of modernization with some nuances of nationalism, held five subsequent biennials. Fifty four painters participated in the first biennial and thirty nine in the last. (The reason for the reduction of number of participants in the last biennial before the revolution was the inclusion of painters from Turkey and Pakistan in the given biennial.) Three awards of the fifth biennials, each amounting to 10,000 Toumans (around $1500) were dedicated by the Royal Court, and six other awards, each amounting to 6500 Toumans (around $920) were allocated by the ministry of Art (The Catalogue of the First Painting Biennial, Tehran, 1958). The main sponsor and custodian of visual art was the Ministry of Art and Culture until then, but the discords between Farah’s Office and the minister of the given ministry brought about the cessation of these biennials.
Farah’s Office or Foundation was established in 1959 (Chronology supplement of Herfeh Honarmand Magazine, no. 18, 2006). The foundation of Intellectual Cultivation Center of Children and Young Adults, Shiraz Art Festivals and ultimately the establishment of the Museum of Contemporary Art in 1977 (ibid) with Kamran Diba as one of its main designers and consultants (one of Farah’s relatives) are among measures taken by the Royal Court (Farah’s Office) in the sphere of arts before the revolution.
The most productive period of modernist painters took place during 60s and 70s. These decades accidentally coincide with the growth and empowerment of technocracy and appearance of a small, but relatively powerful layer of the new middle class in Iran. It is perhaps more proper to take this 20 years period from 1959 (the Shah’s marriage with Farah Diba and the establishment of Farah’s Foundation) to 1978 (the victory of Islamic Revolution). In 1960 the National University was founded and in 1962 the White Revolution took place – a radical reformative measure ventured by the Shah against the feudal class and clergy with reliance on foreign forces. In 1964 the National Oil Company was founded and in 1968 the first national automobile Peykan was assembled inside the country. In 1971 the festival of 2500 years of national history was held and 1973 was the year of a significant rise in oil price bringing about a relative well-fare in Iran. The highest number of art institutes appeared in these 20 years, Abbasi Hall, the Intellectual Cultivation Center of Children, Rudaki Hall, the Higher Council of Culture and Art, the Higher College of Cinema and Television, City Theater Hall, Tehran Film Festival, Reza Abbasi Museum, Carpet Museum, The Museum of Contemporary Arts, and so on. In addition, a number of journals appeared during these same years, such as Art, People and Rudaki, as well as the the feast of 2500 years of history and Shiraz Art Festival. During the same period, the Castle of Agriculture was built with several modernist painters painting its walls and Behshahr industrial group held the first Tehran art expo in the position of the main private art dealer buying many artworks from artists. Following the last biennial in 1966, the highest number of cultural events, particularly in the sphere of painting took place between Iran and the West with the support of Farah’s Foundation, and several exhibitions of Iranian artists were held in American and European art centers, thus creating a foreign market for Iranian artworks.
Although owing to high price of oil the state treasury happened to fill up on one hand, and on the other Farah Diba, being a woman of art herself, together with Kamran Diba and Firooz Shirvanlu accidentally manifested an appreciable taste and understanding in cultural investments, yet the explosion of state supports and the growth of modernist non-political painting should not be only attributed to chance. The art of many painters of this period – with the exception of a few – was modern non-political art with a trace of nationalism, precisely in line with what the government desired. In this deal, both sides were in harmony with each other and both reached their desired goals. The dominant power during this period was the power field of state and the Royal Court. The political power field belonged to the leftist and religious opposition forces.
The number of leftist painters was quite limited and religious tendencies scored even less. The opposition had numerous theoretical as well as practical discords with each other, and that is why they never accomplished a single style in artistic expression. In regard to form and figure, their works resembled non-political modernist painters – an art inspired by Russian, Parisian , New-York avant- garde and abstract styles; a few were also inspired by Mexican and Soviet Union leftist revolutionary painters. Nearly all these painters opposed the government’s aim in accomplishing a kind of artistic modernization and its glocalization, remembering that this was the government whose administrative structure was laid down by technocrats educated under the reign of Reza Shah.
Owing to the relative direct connection of the of sphere of visual arts (with the exception of graphic arts) to the center of power field i.e. the Royal Court (Farah Diba), before the revolution, with the fall of the monarchy, the artistic activities of these painters came to a standstill for 13 years. Many immigrated and were drawn into foreign markets appearing during the last years of Shah’s government with state supports in the West; and those remaining, went through hard difficult years. After the revolution however, with the change in the structure of the government and ruling classes, the composition of painters entering the competition field over economic, cultural, social and symbolic fields changed too. These groups were: 1) painters of the Islamic Revolution, 2) painters with leftist tendencies, 3) non-political modernist painters, and 4) commercial painters. In what follows we will look at the characteristic features of each group.
Painters of the Islamic Revolution
This group of painters was composed of mainly students studying arts at the peak of the revolution. Their first exhibition was held at Ershad Mosque in 1979. They had religious tendencies and later were the most trusted group for the government –closest group to a part of the political power field in the Islamic Republic. Their formation was so dependent on political events that they could not devote themselves to theoretical and practical discussions proceeding in the sphere of arts. More than they knew what they are or want to be, they first of all knew that they do not want to follow non-political art, and in their view westernized non-political modernists, nor do they wish to benefit directly from communist models. Their ideology was anti-West, Islamism, nationalism and populism, utilizing almost all of the familiar symbols of these ideologies in their works. In this way most of them avoided abstract art and produced eclectic compositions of miniature, semi-realist paintings, romantic spatial arrangement, surrealism, Russian and Mexican revolutionary art with religious revolutionary themes, later covering the subject of war as well.
These young painters were soon in close contact with the political power, were absorbed into the newly established art seminary (hozeh) of the Islamic Revolution and after the cultural revolution when the leftist teaching academics were expelled from Tehran University (College of Fine Arts), they took over this educational institute, enjoying the support of Mir Hosseyn Musavi, (the prime minister of the time) who was not only a man of painting himself (with past activity with the famous Qandriz Hall), but was now in the center of bureaucratic ruling system of the country. Members of the same group were later appointed to the directorship of the Museum of Contemporary Arts – which had turned into the most important state institute of visual arts – holding the first five painting biennials after the revolution and acting as the jury of these biennials as well. In addition, they founded the two universities, Sureh and Shahed and governed them.
Concurrently however, their long years of academic experience and their protracted confrontation and competition with modernist painters, gradually changed their painting style as well as certain patterns of their attitudes and behaviors, with Iraj Eskandari as a prominent example.
He was transferred to Art University during this period (1990s), soon becoming the head of the painting group and the dean of the university. In the fourth biennial, two of his works were exhibited, one in the style of painters of the Islamic Revolution in the first hall, and the other in a totally different style (abstract) in the hall of modernist artists. In the same way, the painting style of each one of these painters gradually went through fundamental changes and they ultimately turned into abstract modernist painters. This change of style however, did not increase their artistic esteem (cultural or symbolic capitals), and did not bring about their absorption into the field of modernist art force in Iran. They maintained their group connections and relations (social capital) and continued to stay close to the political power field.
However, during the transformations of 2 Khordad (the rise of reformists under the presidency of Khatami), some of these painters moved away from their previous positions and the management of the fifth biennial was put into the hands of one of them who was quite close to non-political modernist artists.
After losing the Ministry of Guidance and the Museum of Contemporary Arts, this group was absorbed into the visual department of Art Academia supervised by Mir Hosseyn Musavi and took over Niavaran Farhangsara as well. Losing their control over painting biennials, they initiated the biennial of the World of Islam enjoying a safe good budget.
With the end of Khatami’s second presidential term, the group returned once again to the Ministry of Guidance and the Museum of Contemporary Arts. More than other groups, they have gained benefits from the political power, and from the social capital due to their inter group organization and from the economic capital, due to their dominance over significant state organs, but their share of symbolic capital, i.e. acceptance as intellectual artists and masters, has been comparatively insignificant.
Painters with Leftist Tendencies
Here it should first of all be explained that in Iran painters with leftist tendencies were never an activist political group. Their history goes back to pre-revolutionary time when the ruling air was so polarized that almost nobody could live outside the ideological trends. The number of official members of political groups was low among them, but their political tendencies drove them together. Relying on their power and integrity, they gained dominance over the College of Fine Arts in the short interval between the victory of the revolution and the cultural revolution, when they were all expelled, undertaking the role of opposition in the power field of visual arts subsequently. The leftist painters did not share much in respect to their painting style and method. Their works were usually modern and a few were deeply fond of socialist realism. However, little by little a kind of semi-figurative, semi-abstract art hiding its motto in a formalist framework became their dominant style. They published their criticisms and views in Adineh Magazine. They banned participation in painting biennials from the beginning until 2 Khordad when they took part in the subsequent fifth and sixth biennials. During 80s, some of these painters were not even allowed to exhibit their paintings and displayed them at private shows in their houses, for example. After the establishment of Free University, some joined this educational institute as the teaching staff. Like the painters of the Islamic revolution they enjoyed an unwritten intergroup integrity. It was the same group of painters who laid down the first ideological pillars of the Society of Iranian Painters and through a coalition with non-political modernist painters, they established an institute (the above society) which managed to hold the sixth biennial and turn into a serious rival of painters of the Islamic revolution. In fact, the leftist painters and those belonging to the Islamic Revolution group are the two ends of a spectrum with non-political modernist painters in between. Like other ideological tendencies of 90s, the leftist painters revised their ideological dogmas and got closer to non-political modernist painters. Nevertheless, their history and their experience in political behavior as well as their congenial inter-relationships still provides them with a critical approach toward the ruling system and a social capital which they benefit from.
Non-political Modernist Painters
After the revolution, a number of modernist painters remained in the country. They were mostly active in universities and spent the early post-revolution years justifying and alluring anti-westernization revolutionaries to accept modern art. They were constantly trying to relate modern formalist art to the abstract tendency of traditional Islamic arts, thereby encouraging the custodians of art education to continue teaching modern methods. In fact, this group of painters had already put behind their golden period of 60s and 70s and had stored their cultural capital during that peak period. Later, their competition was over the symbolic capital of the esteem of an intellectual artist master. After 2 Khordad, they were the only acceptable alternative for the reformist government versus the painters of the Islamic revolution. Yet, the biennial held according to their ideas turned to be the most authoritarian biennial held after the revolution. The secretary of the biennial excluded many commercial and Islamic Revolution painters and published the biennial’s catalogue in a very selective way. This narrow minded approach gave rise to significant protest.
The management of the Museum of Contemporary Arts and the Center of Visual Arts cooperated in the formation of the Society of Painters. The Society first appeared in the form of the coalition of a few groups including, a group of non-political painters of 60s and 70s and a rather large group of young and middle-aged graduates of Tehran, Free and Art Universities. It was soon evident that younger painters will not surrender to sheikhdom of painters of 60s and on the other hand veteran masters were not content with their one single vote and relying on their symbolic capital they expected more. Personal conflicts also intensified discrepancies. The secretary of the fifth painting biennial joined the Art Academy and together with painters of Islamic Revolution seized the directorship of its visual department. Veteran non-political modernist painters did not need to be a member of the Society of Painters or play any active role in that society as it could not add to their capitals. It was the younger painters who needed to increase their social capitals in order to advance in the competition of force field. Therefore, the Society did not represent the whole spectrum of painters and although the number of its members was considerable, but its social, symbolic, economic and cultural capitals did not correspond with this high number. Non-political modernist painters were easily absorbed into various politico-economic power fields just because they were not political. They sometimes joined the Society of Iranian Painters, sometimes the Museum of Contemporary Arts, and other times the Art or Town Hall Academia (Farhangsaras). Not enjoying safe economic position or shared political ideological positions, they were always drawn to the more powerful pole of the force field. It did not make much difference whether it were the painters of Islamic Revolution running the biennials or the Society of Iranian Painters, it did not make much difference whether the Niavaran Academy put on a spiritual show or Imam Ali Museum – affiliated to Tehran Town Hall – arranging an art symposium, the non-political modernist painters would participate in them anyway, because the only serious field of competition for these painters was the competition field over symbolic capital – fame and esteem. From the second half of 70s, with the turn of general atmosphere of the society from an intensely political air to a less political space, the non-political modernist painters gained more power. During the following years, and by entering the art markets outside Iran, they joined the competition in the economic field and managed to overrun their rivals in gaining economic and symbolic capitals.
Conflicts and tensions among these three groups are still continuing, manifesting in a more acute way during painting biennials, with the seventh biennial – explained in a later section – as the best example.
Commercial Painters
These painters are qualitatively different from the other three groups. During the contemporary era, while modernist painters saw themselves in the position of intellectuals and felt the task of compensation for the country’s historical backwardness in the sphere of arts on their shoulders, the commercial or popular painters, like traditional artists did not have such an attitude and approach toward their practice. Their competition in the power field takes place solely over the economic capital (see, Afsarian, 2006, 2007)
In what follows, we will look at the nature of power struggle between various groups of painters by referring to the available information about painting biennials held from the beginning to the present time.
Competition of various groups in biennials after the revolution
The first 13 years of post-revolutionary period coincided with early crises of the revolution and war with the consequence that the activity of visual artists, with the exception of those belonging to the Islamic Revolution group was very limited. The first biennial after the revolution was held in 1991, followed by changes and discords among the ruling classes, as well as theoretical bewilderment of artists. As the result of the absence of any dominant discourse, no significant cultural capital was formed for the competition of artists. Therefore, the competition of modernist painters should be surveyed over social, symbolic and economic capitals. That is why many seemingly secondary issues such as grouping, posts and positions, memberships in various institutes, the manner in holding exhibitions, participation or non-participation in public exhibitions, closeness to the ruling system, all are signs and spheres revealing the hidden competition of art groups over the enumerated capitals.
As mentioned above, the first biennial was held in 1991, two years after Hashemi Rafsanjani’s election as the president. In his eight years of presidency term, while the left front running the government during Musavi’s period, was driven to the background, the traditional right front and new technocrats became most powerful particularly towards the end of these eight years and cultural institutes were mainly in the hands of the right traditional front. It was only at the end of this period when Tehran town hall which was in the hands of technocrats founded several academia supporting the genre of art it approved. The Ministry of Guidance, like other ministries in Rafsanjani’s second presidential term were brought out of Khatami’s hand and handed over to the right front. In these eight years, four biennials were held. In what follows we will look at the nature of the influence of political changes in the formation of these exhibitions.
First Biennial with Non-political Modernist Painters
This biennial was held with the participation of 264 artists and 400 artworks in four cultural complexes (Tehran’s biennial before the revolution, was held with the participation of 39 Iranian painters and a number of Pakistani and Turkish painters). The quantitative growth was not due to the growth of the number of artists, but rather to the fact that three groups of painters (those belonging to Islamic revolution, non-political modernists and commercial groups) were also allowed to participate in this biennial. The main reason was that the selecting board was not yet very goal-oriented or fastidious, and the executive management was not yet well-established. In addition, demarcations and alignments were not yet very clear.
The catalogue of the biennial was produced by the corresponding authority in the Museum of Contemporary Arts, who can be classified as a non-political modernist painter. It was arranged and laid out in an alphabetical order disregarding ideological orientations. All kinds of works were allowed to participate in the exhibition and appeared in the catalogue. Only the leftist painters were absent as they had banned participation announcing their position in Adineh Magazine. Among the selected painters of this first biennial, two belonged to the painters of Islamic revolution group (The Catalogue of the First Iranian painting biennial, 1992).
Second Biennial with Islamic Revolution Painters
By the second biennial (catalogue, 1993), positions were clarified. The left was completely excluded. The main competition was between Islamic revolution and non-political modernist painters. The Museum of Contemporary Arts, responsible for holding the exhibition and publishing the catalogue was in the hands of revolutionary painters. Consequently, their works were exhibited in the first hall of the museum and the closer they were to the ruling ideology, the better was the place allocated to their paintings.
The layout of the catalogue was in this way, first came those works dealing with spiritual themes (usually carried out in a semi-surrealist way). After that, they were laid out according to the following themes respectively, religious-revolutionary (war, martyrdom, and the like), then came semi-realist paintings dealing with native, rural, traditional and popular themes (rural scenes of Iran, etc), followed by paintings carried out in abstract modern way and finally still lives (flowers…), women and children, mainly from rural tribal population and finally portraits. The last pages of the catalogue were allocated to modern paintings with native tendencies and traditional symbols and also calligraphy-paintings.
With a glance at the catalogue one can reach the following conclusions: first, the classification of works was clearly according to their themes. This was the dominant tendency of state authorities having thematic expectations of paintings, and the question of style and form came next. Secondly, it seems the layout of the catalogue was in such a way that when turning its pages from right to left, the arrangement of works was more according to the taste of native viewers, with themes approved by the official art. On the other hand, turning the pages from left to right the arrangement appears to be according to the taste of foreign viewers. This double approach in presenting an image of Iran for foreign observers continued later too (the difference between television channels for native audience and satellite networks of Radio and Television for outside is another evidence for such an approach). Thirdly, the alignments are more distinct compared to the first biennial, but less precise compared to the next biennial. The catalogue begins with works by Hanibal Alkhas (with leftist tendencies), Ali Akbar Sadeqi (a non-political modernist painter), Zahra Rahnavard (the wife of the ex-prime minister, Musavi, and the dean of Al Zahra University). In the middle of the catalogue we see works by Hosseyn Khosrojerdi (a painter of the Islamic revolution group), next to Medhdi Hosseyni (a non-political modernist) – it seems they are placed next to each other only for using the same working material).
The winners were figurative painters (probably due to the dominant hostile air toward non-political modernist painters and modern art in general which was considered as a sign of pro-Westernism). The interesting point is that two of these painters belonged to the group of Islamic revolution and among them Habibollah Sadeqi is the only painter who won an award in two subsequent terms in the history of biennials (the first and second). After serving in the political ideological unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Sepah Pasdaran, Sadeqi held the directorship position of the Museum of Contemporary Arts for two years under the presidency of Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
Third Biennial with Islamic Revolution Painters
1560 painters sent their works to the third biennial with the works of 534 of them finding their way into the biennial (Selected Works of the Third Painting Biennial, 1995). The alignments were quite distinct and more defined by then. The first hall belonged to the works of Islamic Revolution painters. Three of the first 12 winners also belonged to the same group of Islamic revolution painters and the first 31 pages of the catalogue were also allotted to the same spectrum. After the works of this group came figurative paintings with a national Islamic aspect; then painting-calligraphies appeared; and after that paintings of rural areas and old towns of Iran. Abstract works appeared from page 100 and one of the winners belonged to this group. Modern figurative paintings appeared from page 138 to page 180 and the works of realist painters (including commercial or popular and non-commercial) appeared in the next 20 pages. The last 10 pages were again allotted to modern painting (probably again to please foreign viewers). A work by Mehdi Hosseyni (the secretary of the fifth biennial) considered as a non-political modernist painter is found in this last 10 pages. As mentioned above, all the enumerated tendencies – from revolutionary, modern, realist, to commercial, painting-calligraphy – could be seen in this biennial.
Fourth Biennial, the Beginning of Transformation of Islamic Revolution Painters
The catalogue of the fourth biennial was not published, but the arrangement of paintings in the exhibition halls was nevertheless as before. The interesting incidence in this biennial was the presence of Iraj Eskandari (one of the painters of Islamic revolution) in two halls; in the first hall his work was next to revolutionary painters and in the lower hall, there was another work by him next to modern painters. This can mark the beginning of the metamorphosis of the painters of Islamic revolution and their gradual transformation into non-political modernist painters.
Fifth Biennial with non-political modernist Painters
Changes resulting from 2 Khordad (the rise of reformists) had already occurred when the fifth biennial took place (The Catalogue of the Fifth Contemporary Painting Biennial of Iran, 2000). The executive management of both the Ministry of Guidance and the Museum of Contemporary Arts had changed and replaced by another group. The best alternative for the new management was the non-political modernist group; the same painters who had been supported by technocrats and bureaucrats before the revolution. The management fell into the hands of those who were outside the mainstream, but were not among the opposition either. Medhi Hosseyni, who together with a group of non-political modernist artists had maintained the light of ‘modern painting relying on native elements’ burning all these years was appointed as the secretary of the biennial.
These painters were more powerful from the point of view of theoretical foundations and their confidence in this theoretical power gave them the necessary freedom to exclude others. Their biennial was different from all the previous ones. The works by pioneers of non-political modernist painting were put up in the first hall, and the rest of the works were displayed in other halls. The exhibition was held only in the Museum of Contemporary Arts and out of 1371 painters sending their works to the biennial, only 120 artists were selected, that is only one fifth of the total number of applicants were allowed to participate – reminding that in the third biennial one third managed to take part. In the fifth biennial one tenth of applicants found their way into the biennial. (Discrepancy in numbers)The biennial’s secretary candidly wrote in the beginning of the catalogue that commercial works (painting, painting-calligraphy and semi-realist genre) have no place in biennials. Although the catalogue was arranged alphabetically, but the works of 11 participants were excluded beforehand, to prevent the appearance of those paintings not in line with the ideology of non-political modernist artists in the file of this biennial.
The selecting board consisted of members belonging to the two rival groups of previous years: one half of its members were among the teaching staff of Art University (non-political modernists) and the other half were painters of the Islamic revolution group (teaching staff of Tehran University) and there were no representatives of the leftists or painters who graduated after the revolution. Among the jury however, only one revolutionary painter (Habibollah Sadeqi) was present. A greater number of awards were offered to Abstract painters. Now as mentioned before, leftist painters did not participate in this biennial, nor did a large number of post-revolution art graduates whose approach and ideology differed from the formalist view of the previous generation of modernist painters. This biennial intensified conflicts because despite the propaganda of the new government for the establishment a more open air, the responsible authorities held a more totalitarian approach than those of the previous biennials. The director of the Museum of Contemporary Arts had to look for an alternative in various groups of painters. This time a few painters with leftist tendencies (keeping in mind that leftists have always acted more successfully in group works) proposed to establish the Society of Iranian Painters. The Society of Writers founded before with the same leftist tendency had already proved to be an effective institute. Under the reformist government, civil institutes such as various societies and NGOs were to act as intermediaries between people and the ruling system. The leftist painters and a group of non-political modernist artists of the pre- and post- revolution periods formed a coalition and founded the Society of Iranian Painters.
Sixth Biennial with young non-political modernist painters and Leftist Painters
The Society of Iranian Painters proved to be more democrat and inclusive than other institutes. After the revolution the number of painters and art novices had considerably increased. In contrast to all institutes and management boards before and after the revolution, the presence of women and their activity was quite striking in the given society. For the first time a woman was selected as the secretary of the biennial, and there were also four women among the members of the selecting board (The Sixth Contemporary Painting Biennial of Tehran, 2003). The members of the selecting board were chosen from post-revolution modernist painters or those who were until then outside the power fields. The board of juries with the presence of an internationally known film-maker, an architect and a few foreign juries presented a totally new configuration. The Society was compelled to invite 33 known forerunning painters as guests to the biennial. They were painters with significant symbolic social capitals whose exclusion could have caused tremendous difficulties for the authorities of the biennial. In reality, the biennial was held by the young members of the Society (post-revolution art graduates). But what the various generations of modernist painters agreed upon was the exclusion of commercial painters. In addition, the Society was determined to keep out painters of the Islamic revolution group as well – and it did achieve this goal in the sixth biennial, but paid for its consequences in the next biennial. It was quite evident that the Society consisting mainly of young leftist and modernist painters had the greatest distance with the painters of the Islamic revolution.
The catalogue of the exhibition covered the works of all participating artists and they were arranged not according to age – the criterion used by modernist painters of the previous generation – or closeness to the political power field. It seemed common understanding and similar views of this group of painters could provide the possibility of emergence of a competition field over the cultural capital. However, due to pyramidal structure of power, which was probably in accordance with economic structure dependent on oil, all their efforts failed with the change of government.
The Seventh Biennial with the Painters of Islamic Revolution
The seventh biennial was held four years after the sixth. The government had fallen out of the hands of technocrats and it did not find the ideological administration of any groups closer to its own other than the painters of Islamic Revolution. Hosseyni Raad and Habibollah Sadeqi were among the Islamic Revolution painters who occupied the position of the directorship of the Museum of Contemporary Arts. Their efforts were directed to resume the state of affairs prevalent before 2 Khordad, when everybody could participate in the biennial, but the management was in the hands of the given group. The Society of Painters did not yield to this approach and as the present group was the same group ignored by the Society, they thus took back the management of the biennial for the Society and held it in the old way with the presence of everybody including themselves. As usual many of non-political modernist painters participated in the biennial, but the leftist trend of the Society banned it. The catalogue of this biennial has not yet been published.
The final conclusion is that twice (once in 40s and early years of 50s and the second time under the presidency of Mohammad Khatami),the significance of cultural capital was augmented compared to other capitals as the result of a shared common point of view between the state (as the main supporter of arts) and modernist painters in respect to artistic rules and regulations, with the consequent result of a qualitative growth of this trend of painting witnessed both in 50s and also in recent years. Accidentally both times Iranian art managed to find its way into international markets as well. In the absence of such shared common points of view in respect to definitions, the configuration of competitions also totally change.
Bibliography:
Pakbaz, Rouin (2000), Iranian Painting from the Past to the Present, Narestan publishing house, 2000
Minoofar, Setareh, Chronology attached to Herfeh Honarmand Magazine, No. 18, Winter 2006
Afsarian, Iman, Modernist painter-commercial painter, Herfeh Honarmand Magazine, No. 16, summer 2005
Afsarian, Iman, & Raavdraad, Azam, Iranian Painting in the era of Tradition and Modern, the second specialized seminar of sociology of art, Art Academia of Islamic Republic, 2006
The Catalogue of the first biennial of Iranian painters (after the revolution), 1991, The Center of Visual Arts, 1992
Contemporary Iranian Painting, the catalogue of the second biennial, The Center of Visual Arts, 1994
Contemporary Iranian Painting, the selected works of the third biennial, The Society of Visual Arts, 1995
The Taste of Dream, the catalogue of the fifth biennial of Iranian contemporary painting, Nasar Publishing House, 2000
Sixth Biennial of Iranian contemporary painting, The institute of visual arts 2006
Christie Ben Shubreh, Evelin
Footnotes
1- Christiane Chauviré, Olivier Fontaine, Burdieu’s Vocabulary, translated by Morteza Katbi, Ney Publishing House, Tehran 2006, pp 138-141
2- Pierre Bourdieu, The Theory of Practice, p.284, translated by Morteza Mardiha, Naghsh o Negar Publishing House, 2002, Tehran
3- Christiane Chauviré, Olivier Fontaine, Burdieu’s Vocabulary, translated by Morteza Katbi, Ney Publishing House, Tehran 2006, p.97
