A Critical Analysis of Historical Definitions of Islamic Art and Their Theoretical Evaluation Based on Formal Principles of Definition

Rahimifar, Zohreh Sadat; Saeedi Zadeh, Mohammad Javad

doi:10.22034/rph.2025.2076648.1194

A Critical Analysis of Historical Definitions of Islamic Art and Their Theoretical Evaluation Based on Formal Principles of Definition

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Zohreh Sadat Rahimifar ¹

Mohammad Javad Saeedi Zadeh ²

¹ PhD Student in Art Research, Faculty of Advanced Studies in Arts and Entrepreneurship, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Art Research, Institute of Higher Education of Art and Islamic Thought, Qom, Iran.

10.22034/rph.2025.2076648.1194

Abstract

Islamic art, a rich and dynamic manifestation of Islamic civilization, emerged and evolved across a vast expanse of the globe starting from the 7th century CE. This legacy, born from the growth of diverse Islamic cultures and governments, has consistently faced a fundamental challenge regarding its definition, despite its global influence and status as a vital research area. Ambiguity surrounding the term “Islamic Art” and the lack of a single, universally accepted definition among prominent historians (such as Kühnel, Ettinghausen, Grabar, and others) have hindered the precise communication of its meaning and the establishment of robust theoretical arguments. Prior research has primarily focused on historical, chronological, and interpretive studies. The main objective of the present study is the critical analysis of historical definitions of Islamic art and the assessment of their theoretical soundness and validity based on logical criteria. The analytical framework is constructed upon the formal principles of definition: Comprehensiveness (Jāmiʿiyyah), Exclusiveness (Māniʿiyyah), Clarity (Wudūḥ), and Non-Circularity (Adam-i Dawr). The key question is which of these definitions exhibits greater logical consistency. The central hypothesis posits that none of the presented definitions, taken in isolation, are capable of offering a valid and comprehensive definition conforming to all formal principles of logic. This paper employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, aiming to reveal the shortcomings and strengths of each definition and to formulate a rational framework for understanding Islamic art by subjecting the existing definitions to rigorous scrutiny. This paper, utilizing a descriptive-analytical method based on qualitative library research, examines, compares, and analyzes the views of prominent Islamic art historians through the lens of a logical approach. The research is fundamental in nature and lacks statistical data. The science of logic serves as the primary tool for identifying the essential characteristics of a correct definition and preventing ambiguity. In the assessment process, the validity of Islamic art definitions is measured against the laws of definition to ensure the intended concept is accurately conveyed. The four criteria for a correct and useful definition are: 1- Comprehensiveness and Exclusiveness: means the definition must include all instances of the definiendum (comprehensiveness) and exclude all foreign instances (exclusiveness); 2- Clarity (being clearer): means the concept of the definition must be clearer to the audience than the concept being defined; 3- Conceptual Non-Triviality: means the definition must be conceptually distinct; and 4- Non-Circularity: means the definition should not employ the concept being defined itself. Despite the vast volume of historical studies in Islamic art, a systematic, analytical-critical, and logical assessment of the existing definitions has yet to be undertaken. This research adopts formal logic as its methodological instrument. Based on these principles, the definitions put forth by renowned historians—Kühnel, Ettinghausen, Grabar, Price, Brand, and Al-Bahansi—are evaluated against logical criteria. The ultimate goal of this analysis is to establish a rational framework for critiquing and comparing diverse viewpoints and to gauge the theoretical soundness and validity of these definitions within the field of Islamic art. Ernst Kühnel viewed Islamic art as rooted in the Qur’an and Hadith, possessing a spiritual and abstract nature that avoids the imitation of nature. Logical critique indicates this definition lacks sufficient comprehensiveness (focuses on early periods) and exclusiveness (shares spiritual nature with other religions’ art). It suffers from implicit circularity and insufficient clarity by referencing vague concepts such as “Islamic culture.” Richard Ettinghausen considered Islamic art a reflection of the culture, history, and religion of Muslims, influenced by Sasanian and Byzantine legacies. The critique is that it lacks sufficient comprehensiveness (overlooks works like Umayyad iconographies) but exhibits good exclusiveness. Referencing “Islamic culture and civilization” leads to implicit circularity, and it lacks clarity in delineating boundaries. Oleg Grabar defined Islamic art as a complex, evolving phenomenon resulting from dynamic interaction, not necessarily tied to purely Islamic tenets, created by Muslim artists for purposes related to Islamic populations. His definition exhibits high comprehensiveness but lacks sufficient exclusiveness (includes works with non-Islamic foundations). Ambiguity in “Muslim” and “purposes” diminishes clarity and creates circularity. Christine Price defines Islamic art as the art of Islamic territories, based on Tawhid (monotheism) and Tanzīh (transcendence), avoiding sacred imagery. Logical critique shows this definition lacks sufficient comprehensiveness (restricting art to Islamic-ruled lands). It possesses good exclusiveness and is strong in terms of non-circularity, but clarity is diminished by the lack of precise explanation of the practical manifestation of “Tawhid.” Barbara Brand characterizes Islamic art as serving rulers or the aesthetically minded Islamic community, influenced by Muslim thought, emphasizing order, symbolism, and the primacy of writing. Critique reveals this definition lacks sufficient comprehensiveness (inconsistency and restriction to patronized works). While showing good exclusiveness, the ambiguity regarding “Muslim thought” and the reference to “Muslim culture and thought” lead to a lack of clarity and implicit circularity. Afif al-Bahansi traces the origin of Islamic art to geographical, civilizational, and doctrinal factors, relying on Tawhidic beauty, abstraction, and Arabic script. This definition’s comprehensiveness is severely challenged by reducing the origin to “Arab” ethnic roots and neglecting non-Arab cultures/non-abstract works. Despite this flaw, it exhibits adequate exclusiveness and is strong in terms of non-circularity, but ambiguities render it narrow. Sheila Canby adopts a geographical, descriptive, and formal approach, emphasizing prominent visual elements (Arabic script, arabesques, and geometry) in lands ruled by Islamic dynasties. Critique shows this definition lacks sufficient comprehensiveness (focuses only on instances, neglects other components) and exclusiveness (shared visual elements with non-Islamic arts). It exhibits good clarity and adheres to the non-circularity criterion. Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair employ a historical and contextual approach, defining Islamic art as a “visual culture of place and time” created in lands where Islam was the dominant religion. This definition possesses sufficient comprehensiveness (wide range of works, historical context) and good exclusiveness (distinction from other religious arts). It shows good clarity and can be considered non-circular. Overall, this definition possesses one of the strongest logical structures among those examined. In conclusion, while numerous scholars have attempted to define Islamic art, most of these definitions adopt a reductionist approach, highlighting one aspect while neglecting others of this complex art form. The results of the logical analysis of the definitions by prominent historians show that all of them face challenges regarding the criteria of Comprehensiveness, Exclusiveness, Clarity, and Non-Circularity. In terms of Comprehensiveness, Grabar and Bloom/Blair are more inclusive, while Kühnel and Canby are less so. Regarding Exclusiveness, Ettinghausen and Price set clearer boundaries. Circularity is not observed in the definitions of Price and Canby, but it is evident in Kühnel, Ettinghausen, Grabar, and Brand, who resort to concepts such as “Islamic culture” to define Islamic art. The assessment correctly points out that most definitions emphasize only one or a few aspects of Islamic art instead of articulating its complete truth, and this reductionism detracts from both comprehensiveness and exclusiveness. Furthermore, this research is limited because the breadth of viewpoints restricted the possibility of addressing all of them within its scope; therefore, the findings only reflect the analysis of the selected viewpoints and do not claim complete comprehensiveness. Also, due to the difficulty of fully knowing the true essences of concepts (“real definitions”), the research adopted an approach focusing on “essential and necessary properties” and “descriptions” (Rusūm), aiming to provide definitions that are close to a “perfect description” (Rasm-i Kāmil) and are comprehensible and practical. Finally, a major challenge was the lack of explicit and direct definitions from many scholars, necessitating the “reconstruction” of definitions based on their writings, which may diverge from the authors’ original intentions. Overall, a synthetic approach that simultaneously considers the historical-cultural origin, the religious and aesthetic foundations, and the diversity and evolution of Islamic art is required to move beyond a single-dimensional view and achieve a more balanced and scientific definition.

Keywords

Islamic Art

Logical Evaluation

Historical Approach

Principles of Definitions

Subjects

Philosophy of Islamic Art

اتینگهاوزن، ریچارد ؛ گرابار، الگ (1398)، هنر و معماری اسلامی، ترجمه: یعقوب آژند، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

احمدیان، مهرداد (1386)، مقدمه بر بحران تاریخ هنر، گلستان هنر، ش 7، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر.

برند، باربارا (1383)، هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: مهناز شایسته فر، تهران، انتشارات مؤسسه مطالعات هنر اسلامی.

بلوم، جاناتان؛ بلر، شیلا (1381)، هنر و معماری اسلامی (2)، ترجمه یعقوب آژند، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

بلر، شیلا؛ بلوم، جاناتان (1387)، سراب هنر اسلامی: تاملاتی در مطالعات حوزۀ سیال. ترجمه: فرزانه طاهری، نشریه باستان‎شناسی و تاریخ، سال 23، شماره 45، 48-92.

بلوم، جاناتان؛ بلر، شیال؛ جی.دوری، کارل؛ اتینگهاوسن ریچارد؛ اولگ، گرابر (1393)، تجلی معنا در هنر اسلامی، ترجمه اکرم قیطاسی، تهران: سوره مهر.

پرایس، کریستین (1393)، تاریخ هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: مسعود رجب نیا، تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.

تالبوت‎رایس، دیوید (1375)، هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: ماه‎ملک بهار، تهران، انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.

دل‎زنده، سیامک (1397)، تحولات تصویری هنر ایران: بررسی انتقادی، تهران: چاپ و نشر نظر.

ربیعی، هادی (1390)، جستارهایی در چیستی هنر اسلامی، ج1، تهران: انتشارات متن.

ربیعی، هادی (1396)، مجموعه هنر در تمدن اسلامی- مبانی نظری، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

طاهری، علیرضا؛ ظریفیان، رؤیا (1398)، تاریخ‎گرایی در حوزه مطالعات هنر اسلامی. پژوهشنامه انتقادی متون و برنامه‎های علوم انسانی، سال نوزدهم، 137-157.

طهوری، نیر (1386)، نقدی بر دیدگاه‎های مورخان هنر و معماری اسلامی.گلستان هنر، شماره 7، 13-32.

قیومی بیدهندی، مهرداد (1397)، مجموعه هنر در تمدن اسلامی-معماری1، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

کنبی، آر. شیلا (1393)، جزئیاتی از هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: افسونگر فراست، تهران: نشر میردشتی.

کونل، ارنست (1387)، هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: هوشنگ طاهری، تهران: انتشارات توس.

گرابار، الگ (1391)، هنر اسلامی (تعریف و کلیات)، مقاله در دانش‎نامه هنر و معماری ایرانی بر اساس فرهنگ هنر گرو، ترجمه و پژوهش: صالح طباطبایی، تهران، فرهنگستان هنر.

گرابار، الگ (1396)، شکل‎گیری هنر اسلامی، ترجمه: مهدی گلچین عارفی، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات حکمت سینا.

مازیار، امیر (1395)، رویکرد تاریخی‎نگری و ماهیت هنر اسلامی. نشریه هور، شماره 1، ص 6-9.

مظفر، محمدرضا (1384)، منطق، ترجمه علی شیروانی، قم: انتشارات دارالعلم.

هیلن‎براند، رابرت (1402)، هنر و معماری اسلامی، ترجمه: اردشیر اشراقی، تهران: انتشارات روزنه.

فهرست منابع لاتین

Aston, E., & George S. (1991). Theatre as Sign-System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance, Routledge Press London.

Etinghausen, Richard .(1951). Islamic Art and Archeology, T. Cuyler Young. Near Eastern Culture and Society: A Symposium on The Meeting of East and West, Princton NewJersy: Princton University Press

Kühnel, Ernest . (1951). kunst und volkstum im islam, Leiden: brill.

Kuhnel, Ernest (1971). The Minor Art of Islam.Katherine Watson, Ithaca, new york: Cornell University Press.

Kühnel, Ernest (1986). Islamische schriftkunst, Akademische, Graz-Austria: Druck-und. Verlagsansta