Skip to comments.The 'Islamic Art' Hoax
Posted on 04/01/2012 1:35:44 PM PDT by WPaCon
Talking about Islamic art is rather like talking about the art of the Khanates. The Imperial Kingdom of Genghis Khan was the largest contiguous empire on earth. But just because different lands and cultures were conquered by Genghis Khan doesn't mean that there is a significance to grouping their art. The sphere of power of the Muslim Empire stretched from the borders of China and the Indian subcontinent across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, and on to the Pyrenees. There needs to be a further rationale for calling art collections from lands conquered or subdued by the forces of Islam "Islamic Art."
Then why all the impetus, which started in earnest some almost a decade ago, for all the "Islamic Art" openings at prestigious museums, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art to the Victoria and Albert Museum in England? The creation of departments of Islamic art at prestigious universities and museums? The support of prestigious foundations like Doris Duke Foundation for Islamic Art?
It is political correctness.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
‘Art’-?! Are you KIDDING me-?! These geniuses can’t even sharpen their swords correctly- witness those many decapitation videos they put up so prolifcally. Extermination is too good for them...
What do you call a Jewish merchant rampaging through Europe?
Is it like the “Islamic intellect” hoax?
I admit, I’ve been impressesd by their architecture and pottery, and some of their cuisine, as well. They’re still a culture of bloodthirsty troglodytes.
Without a doubt. If there were really such a thing as "Islamic" art, it would have had common characteristics throughout the geography of their infestation. Yet, we do not see anything like that. Arabic architecture is nothing more than what German, British and Indian architects have created in places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and Persian architecture is based on their pre-Islamic cultural heritage.
The Taj Mahal, their ultimate false claim to fame, is heavily based on Indian Hindu temple architecture:
For example, the Taj Mahal is very impressive.
To me, Islamic architecture and most other traditional architectural styles are more aesthetically appealing than modern and postmodern architecture.
The Mongol conquest of the Chin, and then the Sung, led to a period in Chinese painting that principally focused on horses.
In the Il-Khanate of Persia, the ceramic and brickwork showed a marked Muslim influence. Interestingly, although the first Khanate to convert to Islam, the Golden Horde did not show such an influence.
The Chaggadids, ruling over a large population of Muslims also showed Islamic influence to a great degree, which increased under the Timurids.
The Toluids, up to the victory of Qublai Quan over his brother Arik Boka, remained largely animist, and showed few outside influences in their art.
And built by Indians.
Islamic art is the same thing as Islamic peace
They don’t exist
While they chop up ancient buddhas and Christian artiacts
How about works of art like piss-Muhammad or Muhammad’s mother fashioned out of elephant dung
As I understand it, “islamic” art doesn’t contain images of people or animals.
My understanding is that it was designed by a Jew as Islam forbids the representation of animals.
The Taj Mahal is a gravesite for two humans - Shah Jahan and his wife.
As far as Islam is concerned, this glorification of a human gravesite is forbidden. Remember the recent death of that Saudi king? He was buried in true Islamic style, in an unmarked grave.
The Taj Mahal is the complete opposite of the concept, and in violation of Islam itself. Point this out to Muslims who sing about the Taj Mahal and watch them cringe.
The trident-like spire-ornament atop the Taj Mahal is what is usually found atop Hindu temples.
Your photo with the reflection reminds me of reading something regarding the supposed second site of what was to be the “Black Mahal”.
One interesting theory was that it was never really to be built but the black silhouette on still water was seen as a separate building in a spiritual realm.
The only Islamic art I have seen are the cartoons mocking muhammed. They are pretty accurate.
For the most part you're right; muzzies to tend to be iconoclasts. There are a few exceptions, the most notable probably being the Safavid Empire in Iran from about 1500 into the 1600s. Some of their manuscripts, both representational and abstract, rival pretty much anything done in the west, at least in a technical capacity.
There do exist discerning elements in geometry and form used in architecture by Islamic groups and Christian groups.
Compare the architecture of Spain under Islamic control vs Christian control.
Compare Alhambra in Granada Spain as a type of Islamic Architecture. (Alhambra is actually a good example of Islamic, Jewish and Christian architecture. The original construction circa 1100AD was Islamic, later added with the Jewish influenced Lion's Palace (12 lions representing the 12 tribes of Israel), and later added the Carlos V Palace by a Christian Monarch Carlos V beginning circa 1527 and completed in 1957.
Compare this to later 16th century architecture of northern Italy and the Church.
It’s probably as disingenuous to criticize ‘Islamic Art’ as not being a true form of art as making a similar criticism of “Christian Art”.