Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

This article examines and criticizes the view of unity in plurality in the views of traditionalists such as Frintoff Schwan, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and Titus Burckhardt in art. The manifestation of the view of unity in plurality in Islamic art requires four presuppositions: a) the inherent connection between Islamic mysticism and Islamic art b) the familiarity of artists and audiences with mystical concepts c) the transhistoricity of concepts d) acceptance of the originality of the author's intention. All four presuppositions are subject to criticism and there is no historical evidence for them. For example, the concept of unity in plurality was formally raised in circles in the ninth century onwards, so at least in works before this period, the conscious expression of this concept by artists and audiences is not very reliable. Unless we consider unity in plurality to be transhistorical. However, the claim of transhistoricality will present a contradiction, because if a concept is transhistorical, its manifestation is beyond the monopoly of Islamic art. In fact, this concept is manifested in every culture and period. In fact, the fundamental characteristic and sense of unity in Islamic art creates cognitive conflict and eliminates the factor that separates Islamic art from non-Islamic art.

     

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---

---