Throughout the book, several characters discuss the differences between Western and Eastern ways of painting. Two major parts of that difference are style and anonymity. One initial difference lies in the purpose of painting. As Enishte says, “Every picture serves to tell a story If there’s something within the text that our intellect and imagination are at pains to conjure, the illustration comes at once to our aid But painting without its accompanying story is an impossibility” (Pamuk, 27). In the Eastern view, art exists to serve the story, not as something worth existing in and of itself. Likewise, the role of the artist is considered to be unimportant. One character notes, “It is indeed important that a painting, through its beauty, summon us toward life’s abundance, toward compassion, toward respect for the colors of the realm which God created, and toward reflection and faith. The identity of the miniaturist is not important” (Pamuk, 64). This statement reflects two major aspects of Eastern art: Its purpose is to reflect the viewpoint of the deity and the artist is not important, thus the artist should not sign a painting and should remain anonymous. This anonymity contrasts with the customs of Western art, as described by Master Osman, when he states what questions he would ask of a miniaturist: “Has he come to believe, under the sway of recent custom as well as the influence of the Chinese and the European Franks, that he ought to have an individual painting technique, his own style? As an illustrator, does he want to have a manner, an aspect distinct from others, and does he attempt to prove this by signing his name somewhere in his work like the Frankish masters?” (Pamuk, 67). As described in several passages in the novel, Eastern painting involves mirroring older representations of objects so that there is no distinctive style of any one individual artist. For example, for some pages, one artist would do the head, another might do the torso, and still another would paint the legs and feet. The depiction should be seamless, so that there is no room for individual style. As noted in the novel, the perspective used should be that of the deity (in what sounds like a birds-eye view), not the perspective of a human looking at people or objects around him or her. The size and placement of people and objects should reflect their importance to the deity, not how they appear in real life.
The Western style of painting differs greatly from the Eastern style. Enishte describes the Western style of painting he saw when he visited Venice and notes, “In the background landscape visible from the open window there was a farm, a village and a blending of color which made a realistic-looking forest” (Pamuk, 28). The style is different because it is realistic looking. As commented on in the section the tree narrates, “Painting in the new style demands such talent that if you depicted one of the trees in this forest, a man who looked upon that painting could come here, and if he so desired, correctly select that tree from among the others” (Pamuk, 57). In addition, when Enishte visited Venice, he asked himself questions about the fundamental purpose of the painting; he says, “What was the narrative that this representation was meant to embellish and complete? As I regarded the work, I slowly sensed that the underlying tale was the picture itself. The painting wasn’t the extension of a story at all, it was something in its own right” (Pamuk 28). For Western painting, the art does not serve simply to help tell the story; it is valuable in its own right, independent of any story. Portraits of individuals are common, for no other reason than to show their facial features. Western art uses a different perspective (from the point of view of a person looking around himself or herself), than used in Eastern art. Its purpose is not tied so closely to reflecting a deity’s viewpoint. In Western art, painters sign their paintings; they have no desire to be anonymous. They develop very individual styles of painting, so that someone might immediately distinguish a painting done by one artist from one done by another artist.
Part I, Question 2
Elegant Effendi was one of the four miniaturists who had been working for Eneshti on the secret book for the Sultan; his character speaks as a ghost. He was murdered because he disapproved of the secret book, which was to contain a portrait of the Sultan done in Western style. He threatened to “[denounce] as unbelievers Enishte Effendi, all the miniaturists and even Master Osman, letting the rabid followers of the Hoja of Erzurum have their way with them (Pamuk, 135). His murder parallels what is happening in miniature painting. The various miniaturists are coming to accept, whether slowly or quickly, that their way of painting is coming to an end but that they must change in a way that does not offend the religious sensibilities of the community. Elegant Effendi had recently come under the influence of the religious fanatic Nusret Hoja, who was busily declaring many activities as blasphemous or heretical, including such things as drinking coffee, being a dervish, and so on. The murderer Olive implies that Elegant’s plan to denounce their project was a result of having been overly influenced by Nusret Hoja. Per Olive, if that happened, then not just a few painters but the entire workshop would have been destroyed.
Part II (25%)
What is your opinion of the manner in which Orhan Pamuk presents the history of miniature painting? Did it help or hinder your knowledge of this historical mode of painting? Who was your favorite character and why?
Pamuk presents the history of miniature painting in a very convoluted style, through the use of frequently changing narrators who know only some aspects of what is occurring. This narrative style makes it difficult at times to follow the events of the book. In addition, some of the characters relate what someone else has said about painting, followed by their own comments on painting, so there is no straightforward presentation of the history. As a reader, you have to piece it together like a mosaic. However, because the information is also presented against the backdrop of a murder mystery, it is much more interesting than it would be to just read a very dry, historical account of miniature painting. Ultimately it helped my knowledge because I was able to understand not only the technical aspects of it but also why it was done the way it was. Before reading this, I hadn’t really thought about how different the Eastern view was of the purpose of art, as compared to the Western view of art. The idea that the artist should remain anonymous, because he was completely insignificant and subordinate to the creation of something reflecting a story and God’s will and viewpoint, was somewhat new to me. However, it reminded me somewhat of the shift in literary theory that came about during the Romantic period in German and British literature, when the idea that the poet was simply a vessel who conveyed a vision delivered to him by God, changed to the idea that the poet creates his own vision. What seemed to be going on here was the beginning of that shift, in the artists wanting recognition for their talent and work, and being able to create in their own style.
My favorite character was Black, mostly because he didn’t seem nearly as caught up in arguing the merits of one artistic style over another, and seemed much less obsessed than the other artists. He didn’t seem to want to sit around for days and days talking about painting one way as opposed to another; he simply wanted to paint and have a reasonably happy and fulfilling life.
Works Cited
Pamuk, O. (2001). My name is red. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
