The Effects of War on Contemporary Iranian paintin
The Effects of War on Contemporary Iranian painting
(A Roundtable)
Farairan Quarterly,No. 2, Winter 2000
War and its sacrifices have repeatedly constituted the subject matter of artistic endeavors. Great literary classics as War and Peace, Red and Black and Nothing New on the Western Front, and musical masterpieces as the Stalingrad Symphony and Finlandia, are well-known examples in case. In painting, from Iranian and Mongol miniatures and paintings, once used as means of recording history, to Velasquez, Goya, Delacroix and, most famous of all, Picasso’s Guernica, are masterpieces reflecting the effects of war and its relevant events. These effects were also repeated during the long war which endured in the past decade.
The eight year-long war and the temporary occupation of parts of Iranian soil by invading forces, accompanied by such horrors as chemical onslaughts, rocket assaults on cities and the dislocation of the population of occupied regions, and the resistance and sacrifices of the Iranian youth who, relying on their strong faith and will-power, boldly confronted the enemy and successfully ousted it from their country at the cost of hundreds of thousands of martyrs and disabled bodies, had deeply and long-lasting effects on the mind and psyche of all the Iranian people, including a host of artists, who directly or indirectly expressed their feelings in artistic terms.
In this issue, continuing its discussion on Contemporary Iranian Arts, Farairan examines the issue of the effects of war on painting. We hope to have been able to adequately raise valuable points in this concern.
The illustrations presented in this section of Farairan are a selection of thousands of paintings created in the course of the resistance of the country’s sons and daughters or in memory of their sacrifices.
Manijeh Mir-‘Emadi
Farairan: In the life of any artist, besides personal events which bring about inner effects, there are also issues which happen beyond his or her individuality, among which are social events. An important event which occurred in our society and lasted for a relatively long period was a war to which the society in general, and artists in particular, reacted. In literature, novels were written which reflected the war. Regardless of whether their authors were for or against the war, what is important is that our writers and poets reacted to it, and that our painters were not without being affected by it either. The topic of our discussion today is the ways in which the war affected Iranian painting and the manifestations of these effects.
Aghdashloo: As you have noted, we are faced here with both personal effects and all-embracing ones. In order to initiate the discussion, I shall try to briefly speak of both aspects. On the individual level, war has been present in my works and it was not a matter I could disregard, particularly for me as a painter whose works bear both social and literary contents. Therefore, even if indirectly, I have been affected by it, and have reacted to it. I can say that I was perhaps one of the first painters to show the effects of the war in my paintings, as is reflected in my book: a crumpled miniature by Reza ‘Abbasi is burning and, as in any fire, where bits of paper are scattered and fly about, floating aimlessly in mid-air. In the background, billowing columns of smoke bespeak the raging fire of the war. Such cases are not rare in my paintings. Another example is a bird typically seen in ancient Iranian ‘Bird and Flower’ paintings shown lying dead in a plain while columns of smoke rise to the sky in the background. These represent the most direct type of indirect paintings I can mention, but, as far as my inner gloomy feelings are concerned, I may refer to an older painting of the sea in which the sky is mud-colored, as are the shore and the sea itself, giving the whole the appearance of a bad dream. These paintings were created under the influence of the war and this influence is not objective and direct, but rather represents feelings that were deeply ingrained, at the time and later, in my mind and embodied my sorrow at the destruction of values.
As to the second part, when I attempt to investigate the impact of the war upon contemporary Iranian painting, it seems to me that it has been much less than it should have. That is, we do not see in it the true painting of war– one that enables us to perceive the war; whether the war itself or its aftermath. Besides paintings which unequivocally and directly depict the war, and which rank among post-revolutionary paintings and represent the dedication of our revolutionary painters, such traces are hardly perceptible in others’ works. Yet, I must note here that, in my opinion, this is not strange. If we look at painting from this viewpoint, we see that, everywhere in the world, painting is seldom committed to such matters. You hardly see paintings which reflect World War Two, the Korean War or the Vietnam War.
Perhaps this is the nature of twentieth century art. Unlike in literature, which directly narrates events, painters rarely fulfill this mission. In my opinion, this does not mean that our painters, or those of any other land, feel no duty or commitment in the face of social events which constitute the major part of their existence. Rather, perhaps this character is less marked in painters. When we look at literature, we find it to be a faithful mirror of social events. That is, you can study the history of through its contemporary literature. All the historic events of the past five decades are massively reflected in protesting literature, whereas, if we attempt to research about the protesting painting of, say, the period ranging from 1953 to 1978, we realize that their number hardly reaches fifty, and that even those are the works of particular painters who were the revolutionary artists of that period. In an overall glance, it is perhaps more appropriate to investigate how it is that painting can only reflect this determination much later, much more indirectly and much more faintly.
Moslemian: After the revolution, the war was a very important event which happened in the country and, in my opinion, its dimensions were so great that its psychological consequences will endure for several generations after us. Undoubtedly, this event also greatly affected me and, since 1981, that is only a short while after its cessation, I became deeply and directly involved with this theme. In fact, from 1981 to 1988, I painted precisely under the title of war.
Naturally, I was not alone on this path and I am convinced that the majority of our artists, as individuals concerned with the country’s social life, became involved, whether directly or indirectly, with the issue of the war. If time allows, I will speak more extensively about my own works, but here I am mainly concerned with the war’s social effects, particularly on painting. In my opinion, we must discriminate between this art and the other fields of cultural activity, including literature. Literature is a conceptual domain and it actually expresses more aptly the concepts and events which take place in the course of time, but we have gained a wide experience in the domain of painting which shows us that its expression is not achieved through descriptions or concepts. In fact, in the contemporary experience, expression manifests itself mainly by relying on visual elements and their plastic qualities. Painterly reaction manifests itself in painting constructions by relying on the artist’s individual and social psychological character. The effects of war upon many of our painters can be seen from this viewpoint. Now that this description has become a secondary issue, and that what counts is the manner of expression, we can strongly perceive the effects of war even in the abstract works of some of our colleagues, to the extent that we can clearly assess them. Yet, there also are painters who, while they have transcended the descriptive stage, and in fact done so in the painterly manner and aptly expressed the issue of the war, have adopted a thematic approach in their endeavor. Their paintings are put forth under the title of war, and although their perceptions of the war are not descriptive or narrative, their works contain allusions to destruction, strife and exertion. These allusions are reflected with great diversity and according to the artists’ different characters. From this viewpoint, I can say that painting has dealt with the issue of the war even more aggressively and widely than literature. Among those who have more directly addressed the issue of the war one may cite Shishehgaran, Safarzadeh and Nami in one category, Shahlapoor in another, and then Chalipa, Habib Sadeqi, Iraj Eskandari and a few others, even some who dealt with the matter in an abstract manner, such as Farideh Lasha’i. When we set their mystical view in parallel with social events, we somehow see the effects of the war in their works. From this viewpoint, I think that these effects are still present in our painting, but in a fashion commensurate with its own metamorphosis in terms of time and history.
Khosrwojerdi: If I remember correctly, the painting of the war began with the invasion of Khorramshahr, and naturally, because of the atmosphere in which we were working, it was a kind of teamwork and the information we received was much closer to reality than for others. I can even say that one of the factors that greatly affected us was a copy of a super-8 film taken by a good fellow from Khorramshahr, Mr. Rastani, who is now one of the country’s worthy photographers. The advantage of that film was that it was not intended as a spectacle. It was a full-fledged documentary film which allowed us to actually witness some of the crimes committed by in Khorramshahr. We also saw the people who had stayed in place to defend their homeland. This stimulated our amour-propre and made us realize how insignificant we were in comparison with them, while we assumed being dedicated, responsible individuals familiar with pains. At the same time, because of the nature of our work, we were unable to approach the current of events and had to make do with the information supplied by hearsay or the mass media. At any rate, the outlook we adopted to depict and interpret the war was not a critical one; it was something like the view of our compatriots in Khorramshahr.
But allow me to explain about what was in fact the outcome of our comrades’ work who, in the words of my teacher Mr. Aghdashloo, were active directly in relation with the war. This direct view of the war in no way meant that events had to take place on an official level. On the whole, there were also many reasons for us to look at events in an entirely painterly manner, because no guidance, no direction from any quarter was involved and all that happened in fact reflected our individual feelings. If we compare these works with paintings in which the Korean war was depicted, we realize that their propaganda aspect is more marked. Usually, works of this type do not show the bitter, ugly facts and rather look at events in a fanciful and publicity-oriented fashion, but if we look at the bulk of works achieved in this domain in , we notice that their expressionistic features are much more conspicuous. Of course, works with publicity-oriented contents are also occasionally seen, but this has seldom occurred in the domain of painting. I take my own works as an example, because only one or two other examples are present in my mind. One such painting is my Qods Trench-mates, which resembles propaganda-oriented works, but this is a rare occurrence, while such influence is hardly visible in any of the others. Another example is a painting by Mr. Goodarzi, which shows a bassiji, portrayed as martyr Fahmideh, standing in front of a large number of enemy tanks.
On the whole, the painting of war was created by several groups. One group was ours and the works we produced in that period have an expressionistic character which is not very bitter either. But, another current also existed some of the exponents of which were mentioned by Mr. Moslemian. These saw the bitter aspects of the war more markedly, and it was of course necessary that the war be seen from this viewpoint as well. But, in my opinion, as Mr. Aghdashloo also noted, on the whole quite little work has been done. Another point is that, in my opinion, the painting of the war should not have looked at war issues with a judging eye. This is an opinion I am expressing today, saying that, at any rate, the issue of the war ought to have been looked at in a realistic, straightforward manner, particularly in the domains of painting and photography. Unfortunately, we seldom looked at the war from this viewpoint, and if, in the future, a group were to consult our pictorial database seeking information about this drawn-out war, they would find no clear-cut visual data concerning it.
Aghdashloo: Mr. Khosrowjerdi expressed the view that not much work has been done in other fields, either in terms of recording or judging the war. Of course, the sum of the works accomplished may be scarce in his opinion, but much good work has been done in photography. I have seen thousands of pictures taken by Mohammad Farnood, some of which are true masterpieces. In cinema too, much work has been done in this regard. One may even say that many films were made. But, as far as painting is concerned, differing with Mr. Moslemian’s opinion, I am still not convinced and persevere in my opinion. Of course, his view involves an extrapolation. It implies that, since painters are sensitive by
nature, they logically could not remain aloof from such a momentous event. And then, to corroborate this view, he finds something of the war in the works of, say, Mrs. Farideh Lasha’i. This is feasible, but I do not think that this is what this assembly is concerned with. Perhaps I think in terms of a more direct image which is neither a cliché nor a slogan. I still think that painting has not done so, and I still think that it has not done so because the essence of modern painting does not comprise this duty. Modern painting can address social issues, it can depict and promote ideals, but not in a direct, arousing fashion. I think that modern painting acts much more delicately, much more inconspicuously and imperceptibly, and on different levels. But, where painting is strongly involved ideologically, or conceptually in your words, a particular type of painting emerges which is revolutionary painting; which ranges from Mexican painting to the realistic socialist painting of the Stalinist era to the painting of Hitler’s time to the statues created under Mussolini. On the whole, I am not trying to exonerate a type of modern painting from this deficiency, but rather strive to search elsewhere for its domain of activity. Another point I remembered here, and which I think was a fortunate action, is the portrayal of the war’s martyrs on urban walls; which, I believe, constitutes a very particular and unique event in pictorial terms. This is totally unprecedented anywhere. We have all seen immense wall paintings depicting war and bravery, or anonymous heroes, but the depiction of these precise portraits of identifiable persons over huge wall surfaces and, for us who have not seen the war, the fact of living amid them and seeing them all the time, not intentionally but by their sheer dimensions, constitutes a major event in the history of plastic arts in the twentieth century. Nowhere has such an event happened, and I wish they would have painted them better, and that our prominent painters could have participated in this effort, not necessarily in a figurative manner, but to express their own feelings about the war. Unfortunately, this did not happen, but even this much is positive. I think that we, who did not take part in the war and only followed it on TV or through newspapers, are somehow indebted, and that is good for us to be reminded of our debt by seeing these immense portraits which nothing can hide from our sight. If this happens, it is important and necessary.
Moslemian: I think that Mr. Aghdashloo raised points in his conclusion which coincide with my views. That is, he believes that painting, owing to its intrinsic character, does not attempt to conceptually describe or express the war, and he even noted that this is perhaps not the painter’s task at all. In a sense, this is exactly what I was saying when I noted that, in contemporary understanding, to express is not to describe, and that our painting attempted to address the issue of the war in an expressionistic manner and not a conceptual one. And it is for this reason that I believe that, if we look at the painting of this period from this viewpoint, which is a broader one and, in my opinion, one which stands closer to the nature of a medium as painting, we cannot fail to see the wide-scale influence of the war upon our painting. But if we look at our contemporary painting from a conceptual point of view, trying to discern personal standpoints or the painters’ acquiescence or otherwise of the war, this is a different matter. In fact, we can look at the issue of the war in two perspectives: on the one hand, in terms of conceptual expression, which groups painters who worked in this domain under the appellation of “Painters of the War”; and, on the other, in terms of an expression corresponding with contemporary understanding; a domain the discussion of which, I believe, calls for more ample preliminaries and necessitates our access to a larger number of works before we can attempt a rational criticism. Here, I must also mention that many of the works we are discussing have never been seen or analyzed by critics.
And a comparison was made between painting and photography, each of which has its own particularities. For instance, the photography of the war, owing to its informative quality and rapid technology, which make it particularly functional, can be swiftly present on scene and readily establish contact, whereas no such capabilities are available to painting. While almost all the galleries were closed during the eight-year-long war, while our painters were working in seclusion, photography was in full action. In other words, we had no adequate space in the public opinion in which to put forth our paintings. Add to these the limited time allowed for viewing paintings, which have to be exhibited on closed premises, and which lose their contact with their audience as soon as they are removed, whereas photography benefits from a wide and swift circulation. All this leads us to the conclusion that the media are as varied in their particularities as they are different in nature.
Aghdashloo: I have a question for you. You are one of our eminent and prolific artists. You have also done research work. Looking at the issue of the war in the works of contemporary Iranian painters, are you satisfied with their overall score?
Moslemian: You have pointed to a very good issue: that in the analytical discussion I mentioned, whether we admit or deny the effects of influence, an important aspect is to find out what has happened on the whole in the body of our painting? I have not yet entered the discussion from this point of view, and I would rather like to touch upon this aspect. I think that, in the works of a few artists, a particular event has indeed occurred, but that this has not happened in those of the majority of our painters. That is to say, looking at the matter in terms of quality and values, I must say no! No qualitative event is seen to have taken place in our painting. The influence is visible, but the expression is clumsy, creativity is low and, generally speaking, only a few of these artists have achieved something.
Aghdashloo: The main point for us, I believe, is to initially differentiate between those upon whom this influence was exerted indirectly and from afar, and those in whom this feeling was inborn and who created worthy works, and the next to find out about these, about how they worked, how much influence they received, and whether they created works commensurate with their immense efforts. Personally, looking at the matter as a long-time art critic and not as a painter, I hardly see any lasting work, whether by those who worked independently and embraced and reflected this feeling, in a manner that is perceptible in their works, or by those who considered themselves committed and worked unworried in a period when, in your own words, no gallery existed and they had to exhibit their works on street walls. In my opinion, the result is unsatisfying either way, and the only gratifying aspect is the huge portraits of the war’s martyrs depicted on city walls.
Khosrwojerdi: Be it as it may, the war was keenly observed from different viewpoints by our painters. Disregarding the indifference of a few, who certainly had their own reasons, the aggregate of both those who were cursorily interested in the war and those who gave it deep consideration represents the capabilities of Iranian painting in confronting the phenomenon of the war. Besides the opposition during the war of a group of individuals to the “Art of the War”, there has been no other hindering factor, and what has remained– apart from political slogans, which are independently meaningful in terms of psychological warfare– shows that, while retaining and bearing in mind ideological and devotional values, which invariably depict a nation’s dedication and faith in the face of an unwanted war, Iranian painting has also recorded its abhorrence of war in a poetic framework. Amid all, the most interesting paintings are those which were not created upon order and originated in the painters’ own beliefs. At any rate, whatever there is requires ample time, although the negligence of those who along the war kept themselves happy with slogans to collect and preserve these works in view of a historic judgement will not be pardoned. And, thank God, Iranian painters will not emerge shamefaced.
