metropolis m

At the invitation of artist Nasrin Tabatabai, architects Niloufar Niksar, Kianoosh Vahabi and film maker Poutia Jahanshad from Tehran discuss the state of artistic production in their country. In Iran, visual art is still seen as opponent of the system unless it conforms to the gevernment’s ideological principles. Nasrin Tabatabai: Artistic production in unstable socio-political conditions are not only affected by those conditions but can also provide the means for addressing them. It would be interesting to talk about the circumstances in which such negotiations take place. Sometimes artists develop productive strategies which can result in aesthetics that bypass these circumstances. Even if you look at life itself, Iranian people found ways to be creative in their daily lives, they found ways to deal with the restrictions and complications within society. Niloufar Niksar: ‘If we take a brief look at the development of art in Iran in the post-revolution years, we find three crucial historical junctures that particularly stand out. One is the revolution itself (in 1979) which, due to the traditionalism of its ruling tenets, imposed an intensely ideological character on the structure of Iranian art, obstructing the path of those who dealt with contemporary art. The second was the eight-year Iran-Iraq war (1980 to 1988), which caused the social and political isolation of Iran internationally. Although one might have expected the war could arouse extraordinary sensitivities in artists to use it as a means of artistic expression, nothing was created but some works that were clichéd and sloganizing. The third historical juncture was Khatami’s tenure of office at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance when there was a more open atmosphere for artistic activity. Although this was a short period it still had a positive effect on filling the gap between artists and society and lessened the fear of self-expression in the public realm in the midst of the post-war reconstruction. The effects of this openness could be seen in the celebration of the first post-revolutionary painting biennial in 1991, the publication of independent art magazines, the reactivation of galleries (particularly private galleries) and the lessening of restrictions on the publication of books. Later, in 1997, when Khatami was elected the president of Iran, once again the Iranian political atmosphere became more liberal. There was a period of about four years during which time artists and intellectuals could present their perceptions of the world’s current art, especially in the visual arts field.’ Pouria Jahanshad: ‘I agree with the point that limitation can bring about some forms of creativity but it has its own intricacies in Iran. For different reasons, the occurrence of creativity is more possible among the general public and is mostly manifested in the form of escaping the limitations and improving the conditions of individual and social life in the face of the surrounding problems. In Iran, public space, as a space that shapes the social identity of individuals, is often influenced by the power relations of the country’s political players, and is based on a presumptive definition of national and religious identity – the structure of this is barely discussed. The index of the individual identity of people is very faint and its effect on this space (as far as its manifestation is allowed) is very scanty.However, in the case of artists, the issue is quite different. The most important reason for the imposition of limitations on artists refers to the influence of art within public space. This is because art is presented in public spaces and can have large audiences. Furthermore, there is the presumption in Iran that a work presented in a gallery, cinema, or other cultural places has the approval of the government. This means that the audience usually understands what they have seen or heard as a model of the legitimate limit for the expression of individual identity within society. This is why, because artworks in Iran can have an undeniable influence on public spaces, more limitations are imposed on the artists in comparison to the general public.’Nasrin Tabatabai: In cinema, we see that some Iranian filmmakers managed to gain a language specific to these conditions?Niloufar Niksar: ‘The social engagement of Iranian cinema gained ground before the revolution. After the revolution cinema had the chance to draw the attention of the government. Due to the leftist outlook of the Islamists of the preliminary years following the revolution, and their interest in dealing with social problems such as poverty, etc, this type of cinema was appreciated and welcomed. But, at the same time, the presence of painters, sculptors, and musicians has been questioned to the extent that for many years they couldn’t express themselves in Iranian society. In fact it took two decades before the ruling power could communicate with such arts and find that they were not in ideological opposition.’Pouria Jahanshad: ‘Compared to other arts, cinema’s dependence on economical institutions, as well as the extensive dimensions of its income and publicity, make it a different case. Furthermore, the sheer volume of news about cinema in the media means that any intense restrictions causes controversy, which inevitably solicit negative reactions both nationally and internationally, and this indirectly lessens the restrictions.In addition, cinema’s more defined contact with other countries helps the filmmakers to be in touch with the outside world more conveniently than artists from other fields. So, in Iranian cinema, restrictions and creativity have acted more or less in tandam. This is not so true of the other arts, in fact restrictions totally diminish the already scant possibility of their presentation.’ Nasrin Tabatabai: We often see that the kind of cinema shown outside Iran is immediately taken by the viewers as a device through which the social and political conditions of the country can be understood. Even with fiction films we see that their fictive nature is somehow neglected and their story is taken as the reality of contemporary Iranian life. For example, the film Circle by Jafar Panahi, which is taken as the ultimate reality of today’s Iranian society in the western media.Pouria Jahanshad: ‘On many occasions, the presence and the success of Iranian cinema in international scenes is not necessarily because of our films and cannot be evaluated against what is purely called cinema. It is an occasion for the West to get acquainted with our condition – especially after a long time of having closed our doors to the outside world following the revolution ¬ – and to also find out our attitudes towards our selves. In many cases, a lot of the Iranian artists’ approach to socio-political issues are not due to their enthusiastic interest in such issues, or issues such as the revival of Iranian traditions. Rather, it is because dealing with such issues shows the paradoxes of living in Iran, regardless of the prevalent aesthetic standards, this is what attracts the attention of the West. This approach to socio-political issues only has a thematic attraction and does not touch the substance of the immediate problems.’ Nasrin Tabatabai: Of course we can’t deny that art and politics are inseparable in countries like Iran, but perhaps we should look for other definitions of ‘political artwork’…Could it be that a point of identification for the Iranian artist and his/her audience is the local and the immediate socio-political references in the work rather than from the traditions of art history? What perhaps Iranian Cinema or literature managed to do was to create a point of identification with both their own history and the prevailing conditions in each period. Kianoosh Vahabi: ‘In my opinion art is intrinsically political. Whether the artist takes on socio-political concepts as the basis for his art, or if he simply explores the realm of abstraction, it will inhibit a political stand in itself. In an ideological political system the political features of all discourses are highlighted and scrutinized even more. The domain of “acceptable” art is therefore limited to a predefined series of clichés that have been considered “politically correct”. Naturally when this ideological approach towards art is mixed with divine concepts it acquires a greater stringency in terms of the limits defined for “acceptable” art. The messages that can be officially conveyed in artistic creations are limited within a boundary that threatens neither the political power nor traditionally divine paradigms. As the political and practical limits for art are officially enforced more stringently, the gap between public and private domains of artistic creations grows wider and wider. There are artworks produced in artistic solitude that are never publicly exhibited.As the process of control on art and its public exposure continues, some sort of “tradition” is formed, especially in societies such as Iran where there is an adequate historical backgrounds for this. These “traditions” thereafter constitute some automatic mechanisms of acceptance or rejection that ultimately define some “norms”. Every artwork that steps out of these “norms” has little chance of survival in the public domain. In its most drastic condition it leads to self-censorship among artists who gradually “learn” how to produce “politically correct” works.’Nasrin Tabatabai: These works that are never displayed are perhaps something that is often spoken of as underground cultural activities in Iran and seen as a kind of illegal art. While I believe the word ‘underground’ is not exactly applicable to illegal art in Iran, there are more varieties to its definition. In a way the word underground is turning into another exotic (if not fetishistic) device, not only amongst the Iranian artists, but also the Western viewer. Pouria Jahanshad: ‘What all underground arts have in common is breaking taboos. Not every illegal act is necessarily breaking taboos but every breaking of a taboo can become evidence of an illegal act. It is for this reason that in many western countries an underground art would not be considered illegal – even if because of the breaking of taboos, and the presentation of anomalous aesthetics, it might already have taken the form of an underground and secret activity ¬ unless the public objects to it and the objections result in the enactment of a law. But in Iran, the situation is almost reversed. That is, for many people, especially the youth who listen to rock music and the many musicians working in this genre, the currency of such music has never been considered to be breaking social taboos. This kind of music has been considered illegal because it is believed that it would promote western culture and music. Therefore spreading this kind of music, and its live performance, are unauthorized, it is not, in itself, illegal.This applies to all the underground arts in Iran – though there is no comprehensive definition for this issue in the country yet. The dominant tendency in such arts, from painting to music to cinema, is mostly in the form of a tendency towards western forms and styles, which causes an “allergic reaction” in Iran.Some of the attention paid to the Iranian underground art by the West, for example; an interest in themes of homosexuality or the life of bisexuals or rock and metal music, almost all of which are made and presented secretly, cannot, in themselves, hold anything new for westerners. But the point that makes such issues interesting for them is the ground on which they are formed ¬(Iran). Therefore, unfortunately, we see that the essence of an artwork is not of interest for westerners, rather, it is the stark contrast of the art against the ground that forms it.’Nasrin Tabatabai: We see this interest of the West having an indirect effect on the kind of art produced in Iran.Pooria Jahanshad: ‘An important point is that the western attention to culture and identity has acted as a two-edged sword in countries like Iran. On the one hand, it has caused the Iranian and Oriental ideals presented in Iranian artworks to be subjected to increased attention, and perhaps many westerners have been able to get acquainted with these cultures and identities through such works. On the other hand, since too much attention is paid to such works in the West, some young Iranian artists, being aware and making use of this situation, have tried to concentrate not on the developement of their work but on being more and more ‘Iranian’ (by which I mean the Iran of Western expectations) to gain acceptance for their work. Consequently, many artists who created their works freely without involving themselves in such trends were neglected and could not come into contact with the international art scene.’ Nasrin Tabatabai: It is interesting to see the limitations of this ‘encounter’ and even its counter-productive effect on the artistic climate of Iran. But I think the biggest problem lies in the lack of a true exchange with the global art scenes, especially in the context of fine arts. Closer contact with the diverse artistic activities on an international level, like international exhibitions inside Iran, may indeed be effective in the development of such an exchange. Has this lack of a true exchange also affected the critical and analytical writings of art in Iran? Pouria Jahanshad: ‘In Iran, art has always suffered from the shortage of competent and professional critics, especially in the field of the visual arts. Surely one of the important points is the lack of contact with other art societies, and the lack of access to credible sources and references. The critics often do not have any reliable references and have to resort to the definitions derived from their own imaginations.’ Niloufar Niksar: ‘Holding biennials, or any other art activities of an international scale in Iran, is only possible through the channels of government and depends on what fields are more preferable for programming and investment from the viewpoint of the government’s cultural policies.’Kianoosh Vahabi: ‘The government is the strongest patron of art in Iran. The cultural budget is mostly distributed by the “Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance” to those artists who are most “politically acceptable”. The economic dependence of artists to govermental sources allows the government to consider itself as the right authority to determine the directions in which artists should move, or what kind of international exhibition or event could take place in Iran. Of course there is a growing market for art in Iran from within the private sector, but it cannot be compared with the markets in the US or Europe. There are a growing number of people who like to purchase artworks, either because of their artistic or economic value, many of them are among the emerging wealthy minority in Iranian society. There are almost no private art collections in the field of ‘contemporary’ art, and the few people who are interested in non-antique artworks are more focused on ‘modern’ paintings or sculptures. The art galleries usually do not pay much attention to works they cannot profit from, like installation works. They also lack the international contacts or take part in international art fairs.’Niloufar Niksar: ‘During the last three decades, that is, since the revolution, the main part of the art and cultural sphere has been concentrated within 700 square kilometres of Tehran. Although Tehran is introduced as the main centre of cultural activity for Iranian contemporary artists, the spaces for presentation of artworks are unsuitable in many respects. There is only one museum that deals with contemporary art in Tehran. And almost all the145, mainly private, art galleries in Tehran have more or less similar spaces ¬most of them had been residential or administrative units that, with a little change in their interior architecture, have been converted into art galleries. Most of them are not suitable for the exhibition of artworks such as installation, video art, etc. However, the metamorphic quality of Tehran has transformed its nature to a Gallery-exhibition. The active presence in social domains in fact has a historical dimension. How much our lives are dependent on the public spaces and how much we value them are issues that are not visible in our culture or in our history. Very often the artist doesn’t know how to address or use the city as a ground for artistic expression.’Niloufar Niksar: Architect and art director, living and working in TehranPouria Jahanshad: Film maker and script writer, living and working in TehranKianoosh Vahabi: Architect living and working in TehranNasrin Tabatabai: Artist and co-initiator of Pages magazine/projects