Rahppoye, Hekmat-e Honar

Rahppoye, Hekmat-e Honar

An Analysis of the Degrees of a Muslim Artist in Encountering Symbol and Its Representation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Science and Art, Yazd, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Art Research, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Science and Arts, Yazd, Iran
Abstract
The language of symbols and mysteries is one of the methods of expression and creation in artistic and literary works by the artist. Certain artistic schools and movements—such as conceptual art, abstract art, art created based on religious and spiritual elements, art produced by mystics or followers of futuwwa, and artworks formed within the context of symbol, sign, and myth—are closely linked to the language of symbols and mysteries.
According to Iranian sages and mystics, meaning can manifest both externally and internally. The general audience can understand the apparent meaning; however, understanding the inner meaning requires knowledge and intuitive awareness. Inner meaning is symbol and mystery, and it can only be discovered by those familiar with symbolic knowledge. In Sufi terminology, a symbol is the inner meaning concealed beneath the outward words, inaccessible to those outside the path. Here, the symbol refers to what is hidden beneath apparent speech.
This article analyzes the relationship that the Muslim artist establishes with different degrees of the symbol. This analysis is based on the positions of the Muslim artist in relation to concepts of symbolization and deciphering across various levels. The research method of this article is descriptive-analytical in nature. The information-gathering method is library-based and relies on indexing tools from primary sources of Traditionalist thinkers and explanatory secondary sources.  These library sources are related to the subject of symbol, symbolization, and decoding in Islamic art. Data analysis is conducted qualitatively with a qualitative content analysis approach. The research findings are obtained through the lens of Traditionalist thinkers such as René Guénon—a scholar who, believing in the relationship between form and shape and their levels, considered the higher realm as the archetype of the lower and regarded the lower levels as symbols of the higher levels.
The existence of pairs of form and meaning is one of the systems that holds significance in the world of creation and, consequently, in religious law. The connection between meaning and its manifestation in form differs across various artistic expressions. An artist, depending on the worldview and culture in which he is raised, chooses different methods to achieve this manifestation in his art, just as the cosmos itself consists of multiple levels. One level belongs to the world of meaning, and another to the world of form. Between these two, other levels also exist. However, each level acts as a veil to the level above it, preventing the perception of the meanings and truths of the higher levels within the lower ones.
Often, in the transmission of meanings from the world of meaning to the world of form, the artist undergoes a stage of decoding and a stage of encoding. In the stage of decoding, the artist interprets the symbols of the natural world—namely the world of creation—and engages in discovering or unveiling the secrets of this world. Undoubtedly, symbols are not unveiled through intellect or sensation alone; rather, the inner capacities of intuition and insight within the human being make decoding possible. By outlining the levels of these worlds and their relationship in the processes of symbolization and decoding by the artist, one can identify three stages—concealment, unveiling, and manifestation—in the process of creating a work of art.
In the stage of unveiling, the artist decodes the natural world and extracts meanings from nature, matter, or the world of creation. But in the stage of manifestation, these meanings must enter human artistic works. This stage in the creative process can be described as manifestation. Since in the manifestation stage, great meanings must once again transform into material-world appearances, the artist is inevitably required to once again use symbols and manifest meaning through symbolic forms. Therefore, it could be said that the work of the artist is both decoding and encoding.
The artist expresses meanings through forms and symbols so that each person, according to his capacity, may perceive these meanings. The position of the artist in the process of creating a work of art is of great importance. This person’s (the artist’s) view of art is not merely as a profession or a means of earning a livelihood, but as a mission. For a Muslim artist, this mission is the decoding of the world—a decoding that reveals the mysteries of existence and manifests them through art. The Muslim artist often learns artistic skills within a traditional culture and civilization under the guidance of a master craftsman. However, before teaching the technical skills, the master first imparts the ethics and values of the craft. In the process of creating artworks, each artist, depending on the refinement and discipline of his soul and his connection to the world of meaning, establishes a different relationship with the concept of the symbol. One group seeks a true understanding of the symbol and its manifestation in art, while another carries only the outward form of the symbols without grasping their higher, essential meanings.
Thus, artists may be categorized into three levels in their relation to symbolic concepts: bearers of the symbol, discoverers of the symbol, and creators of the symbol. Creators of the symbol are those who use the language of art to manifest hidden messages and meanings in their work. They employ various artistic media—such as painting, calligraphy, architecture, and pottery—to convey religious, philosophical, social, and political concepts in a symbolic manner. They make use of symbols, geometric shapes, colors, and inscriptions to express meanings that go beyond the surface of the work. Discoverers of the symbol include both artists and audiences. These are individuals who attain a proper understanding of the hidden meanings and wisdom embedded in traditional and Islamic arts. They interpret and expand upon these meanings through the use of the symbols and forms present in artworks, acting as intermediaries between the creators and bearers of the symbol. Bearers of the symbol are artists who serve as a bridge between Islamic and contemporary art. Although they have not grasped the deep meanings and hidden wisdom in Islamic arts, have managed to transfer the cultural heritage of the past to new generations by focusing on techniques and creating the outward forms of these arts. 
Therefore, it can be said that the artist first seeks to discover and understand the truths of the world, and then seeks to manifest those truths. The language through which this truth is expressed is the language of symbolism, and the artist engages in a kind of symbol-making within the world. The process of creating artworks through the language of symbolism unfolds through the stages of veiling (sitr), unveiling (inkishāf), and manifestation (tajallī)—a progression through which the artist, by deeply contemplating these levels, can attain the truth of existence. Passing through these stages in the creative process is achievable only for artists at the level of symbol creators.  It is only these artists who have refined and disciplined their souls—who have reached this rank, and they are exceedingly rare. However, artists at the levels of discoverers and bearers of the symbol are far more numerous, and each, according to their position, carries a part of art’s sacred mission.
Keywords

Subjects


Akbari, Fatemeh, & Pournamdarian, Taghi. (2011). Symbol and sign and their difference with code. [namad va neshane va tafavot an ba ramz]. Roshd-e Amozesh-e Zaban va Adabiyat-e Farsi, (3) (In Persian)
Behroozipour, Hossein. (2019). Form, expression and meaning in Iranian painting based on the religious and mystical views of Titus Burckhardt and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. [sorat, beyan va ma'na dar negar-gari-ye Iran bar paye-ye didgah-ha-ye dini va erfani-ye Titus Burckhardt va Seyyed Hossein Nasr]. Pazhuhesh-e Honar, 3(10), 127–148 (In Persian)
Chakari, Azadeh, Davoudi Roknabadi, Abolfazl, & Sharifzadeh, Hamidreza. (2021). The manifestation of the concept of symbol in Islamic art based on Umberto Eco’s cultural semiotics (case study: Iranian-Islamic talismans). [tajalli-ye mafhum-e ramz dar honar-e Eslami bar asas-e teori-ye neshane-shenasi-ye farhangi-ye Umberto Eco (motaleye-ye moredi: talism-ha-ye Irani-Eslami)]. Motale'at-e Honar-e Eslami, 18(43), 141–154 (In Persian)
Eliade, Mircea. (1992). The structure of symbol. [sakhtar-e ramz]. Kelk, (29) (In Persian)
Ghanbari, Taban, Soltanzadeh, Hossein, & Nasir Salami, Mohammadreza. (2017). A semiotic comparison of the architectural pattern of Karim Khan Citadel with the inners of the Zand nomadic culture. [tatbiq-e neshane-shenasane-ye olgu-ye memari-ye Arg-e Karimkhan ba daroon-mayeh-ha-ye farhang-e elati-ye Zandieh]. Memari va Shahrsazi-ye Iran, (15) (In Persian)
Ghazali, Mohammad. (1997). The alchemy of happiness. [kimiya-ye sa'adat]. Tolou va Zarrin, Tehran. (In Persian)
Halabi, Akbar, & Sattari Fard, Shahram. (2017). A look at mystical symbols in Iranian–Islamic architecture. [negahi be nemad-ha-ye erfani dar memari-ye Irani–Eslami]. Hamayesh-e Melli-ye Memari va Shahrsazi-ye Bumi-ye Iran, Yazd: Daneshgah-e Elm va Honar. (In Persian)
Honari, Ahmadreza. (2018). Analysis and review of the status of symbol-making in Islamic art. [tahlil va barrasi-ye jaygah-e ramzpardazi dar honar-e Eslami]. Majmu'e-ye Maqalat-e Hamayesh-e Honar-e Eslami. (In Persian)
Lahiji, Mohammad. (1992). Commentary on Golshan-e Raz. [sharh-e Golshan-e Raz]. Sa'di. (In Persian)
Mansouri, Sima. (2007). Spatial quality of Iranian gardens in relation to the quaternity. [keyfiyat-e fazayi-ye bagh-e Irani dar ertebat ba chaharganeha]. Resale-ye Karshenasi-ye Arshad Memari; Daneshgah-e Shahid Beheshti. (In Persian)
Nadaf, Samaneh, & Moghaddas, Jafar. (2011). The cryptic messages in the story of Zahhak. [payam-ha-ye ramzgoone-ye dastan-e Zahhak]. Majalle-ye Hafez, (86) (In Persian)
Nadimi, Hadi. (1999). The reality of ornament. [haqiqat-e naqsh]. Name-ye Farhangestan-e Olum, 6(14–15) (In Persian)
Nasr Esfahani, Mohammad Reza, & Hatami, Hafez. (2009). Symbol and symbolism with an emphasis on mystical Persian poetry. [ramz va ramzgarayi ba teke-ye bar adabiyat-e manzum-e erfani]. Faslname-ye Adabiyat-e Erfāni va Ostureh-shenākhti, (16) (In Persian)
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. (Trans. Rahim Ghasemian). (1996). Islamic art and spirituality. [honar va ma'naviat-e Eslami]. Daftar-e Tahqiqat-e Dini-ye Honar. (In Persian)
Nowruzi Talab, Alireza. (1999). Secret and symbol in the religious vision of art. [raz va ramz dar binish-e dini-ye honar]. Honar, (40) (In Persian)
Parsa; Khaleqi Chatrudi; Shamsi. (2011). An examination of forms of ambiguity and their factors in Suhrawardi’s mystical treatises. [barrasi-ye sor-e eBham va avamel-e an dar rasa'el-e erfani-ye Sohravardi]. (71). (In Persian)
Qur'an, The Holy. (n.d.). Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 62. [Surat al-Baqarah, ayah 62]. . (In Arabic)
Sadeghi, Adel. (2019). Virtual reality and imagination in Ibn Arabi’s thought. [vaqe'iyat-e majazi va khiyal dar andishe-ye Ibn 'Arabi]. Motale'at-e Dini-ye Rasaneh, (2) (In Persian)
Sattari, Jalal. (1993). An introduction to mystical semiology. [madkhali bar ramz-shenasi-ye erfani]. Markaz. (In Persian)
Sattari, Jalal. (2008). Symbolic thinking and sacred art (2nd ed.). [ramz-andishi va honar-e qodsi]. Markaz. (In Persian)
Taghvaei, Seyyed Hassan. (2011). The Iranian garden: an enigmatic language. [bagh-e Irani: zaban-e ramzalud]. Manzar, (16) (In Persian)
Taghvaei, Vida. (2010). Re-reading the form of the Hasht Behesht Palace of Isfahan. [baz-khani-ye surat-e kakh-e Hasht Behesht-e Esfahan]. Name-ye Memari va Shahrsazi, (5) (In Persian)
Volume 4, Issue 2 - Serial Number 7
September 2025
Pages 51-60

  • Receive Date 08 March 2025
  • Revise Date 17 May 2025
  • Accept Date 22 June 2025