Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
essentialized by art historians and critics identifying them with their geographical origins,
identification by western viewers and critics of art. Placing the artist within a specific
social, political or cultural frame is limiting in a globalised art world where artists wish to
which prevents artists from transcending their local context and being considered as equal
With this caveat in mind, I here present three artists: Shakir Hassan Al-Said,
Shirin Neshat and Shahzia Sikander. Although these are three artists which are grouped
intention is to present them individually each as artists active on the global stage creating
work that transcends boundaries, especially that between local and global. Although they
are influenced by their local context and much of their work is deeply relevant to those
situations, at least two of the artists (Neshat and Sikander) have spoken about the primacy
of the personal in their work over the social or political.ii While they do not deny the
political or cultural implications of their works, as Neshat has said it “has very much been
their work in the frame of human experience rather than culturally specific experience. It
makes the work more accessible to people unfamiliar with the context of its production in
an un-exoticizing way.
In a global world where east and west are more and more aware of each other,
drawn closer together, the constructed differences seem to be amplified by this nearness
of difference. All three artists discussed here span cultures and represent distinct hybrid
identities which draw them out of their specifically local context. Whether they intend to
or not, the works of these artists all address issues of identity and difference, focusing on
the “shifting nature”iv of the boundaries which define these differences and help to
construct local as well as hybrid identities. All three also make use of traditional modes
they even articulate the border between the traditional and the avant-garde. Their use of
calligraphy as a signifier of visual rather than linguistic meaning places their works
The three artists exhibited here are originally from Iraq (Al-Said), Iran (Neshat)
and Pakistan (Sikander). Despite significant differences, these three countries share
important cultural facts. Most notable is that all three nations are primarily Islamic, if not
officially Islamic. Although three different languages are spoken in these three countries
(Arabic in Iraq, Farsi in Iran, Urdu in Pakistan), the Arabic script is used for writing all
three languages. This has to do with the holy text of Islam, the Quran. The Quran is
written in Arabic and is considered the very word of God, imbued with a religious
significance beyond that attributed to the Christian bible. Officially the Quran is not to be
translated into any other language than Arabic or it loses its holiness. For Muslims
speakers of other languages, then, the Quran is often recited without any understanding.
In fact, even for native Arabic speakers, the Quran is often not understood since it is
written in a 1500 year old fossilized version of the language, radically different from the
varieties of Arabic spoken today. For people in these cultures, then, the written word
represents something both very religiously important but also unaccessible to most
people. Since most people are unable to understand the literal meaning of the text, the
written language takes on a separate visual meaning. The script is a powerful signifier of
religious and cultural identity. In Pakistan, especially, this power of the written language
is invoked to distinguish Urdu from its nearly identical sister Hindi in neighboring India.
In Pakistan Urdu is written in the Arabic script while in India Hindi is written in the
Devenagri script.
In their work these artists commonly draw on this powerful function of the written
language to signify identity and difference. By further stripping the script of any
linguistic content they reaffirm its sole function as expressing visual meaning. They are
literary meanings to a signifier of visual meaning.”v They are actually completing this
transformation, totally removing any literary meaning and focusing only on the symbols
as “signifier[s] of visual meaning.” Sikander, for example, fills her works with
beautifully painted but meaningless lines of Arabic and Devenagri script (see figure 1).
These vary from recognizable characters and what appear to be legible words to brush
strokes which only resemble calligraphy in their shape, but which in fact are not clearly
letters at all. By repeating these lines of script she strips away all linguistic meaning and
reinforces the “visual meaning.” The script here serves as a signifier of Pakistani/Islamic
identity vis a vis Indian/Hindi identity. By taking away any real linguistic meaning,
Sikander transforms the written language into a new type of symbolic language. Along
with other repeated images in her work (cowboy boots, soccer balls, etc.), the repeated
lines of script are used to “write” in this new “language” about the “shifting boundaries”
Both Al-Said and Neshat also make use of the Arabic script. Just like Sikander,
they make use of script as a series of linguistically meaningless but visually meaningful
symbols. Figures 2 and 3 show representative works of the two artists in which they make
In the work in figure 2 Al-Said minimally inscribes two symbols, the letter ba’ (b)
and the number 8. On the surface this combination makes no clear linguistic sense, and it
is easily interpreted as only some symbol of Arab/Iraqi/Islamic identity. When the letter 8
is understood as its literal equivalent, ha’ (h), the two symbols together form the word
hub, ‘love.’vi This does not seem to have any clear significance in the painting, however.
More significant is that the mixing of numerals and letters here “obscures the word being
conveyed . . . elminat[ing] the semantic meaning of his work.”vii Unlike Sikander’s use of
Arabic script, however, Al-Said’s use does not seem to be such a strong signifier of
identity. According to Byrne, the aesthetic form of the letter and numeral are valuable
aside from any literal or symbolic meaning. Her claim is that Al-Said wants to draw the
viewers attention to the beauty of the form “as it is, rather than what it represents.”viii It is
Whether this was Al-Said’s intention or not, especially for a western viewer the Arabic
Figure 3 shows a photographic self-portrait of Neshat. Here she has inscribed her
body with Persian poetry written in the Arabic script. Although this is actually legible
script, unlike the totally illegible script in Al-Said and Sikander’s work, for most viewers
of the work who are western non-Farsi speakers the poetry is unintelligible and “literally
marks the body as an exotic ‘other.’”ix From the point of view of a western non-Farsi
speaking viewer of this work, the use of script is the same as Al-Said and Sikander’s in
terms of written language stripped of linguistic content. The focus here is again on form
rather than content. While the script screams ‘other!’, the artist confronts the viewer, gun
in hand. This gun contrasts with her veil which also marks her otherness. It literally
divides her face in two, representing her split identity as American and Iranian, and
pointing toward the dichotomies of “conformity and revolt, passivity and protest,
submission and resistance.”x She presents her conflicted, hybrid identity this way in an
Similar to Neshat’s use of veil and gun to draw attention to false binaries used to
construct cultural difference, Sikander and Al-Said both in their own ways draw attention
to boundaries and borders between ‘us’ and ‘other’. Through repeating images of both
eastern and western cultural icons (soccer balls, Hindu gods, cowboy boots and hats,
Arabic and Devenagri script, etc.) Sikander develops a symbolic language to articulate
the “shifting boundaries” of difference.xii Al-Said, on the other hand, makes use of wall
cracks to focus our attention on depth rather than length or width.xiii This crack
must have occurred to create the crack. It can also be understood metaphorically as a
reference to the gaps that create and the walls/boundaries that reinforce difference. His
use of the crack, like Sikander’s use of her constructed symbolic language and Neshat’s
societies. This has caused “writing … [to] inevitably become a privileged means for
power and dominance; its form and content are constantly manipulated for such
purposes.”xv The artists exhibited here are attempting to re-appropriate and use writing to
resist the power and dominance of the west. By focusing on the symbolic significance of
written language to express religious, political and cultural identities and juxtaposing
the direct gaze and gun (Neshat) these artists are resisting the colonial attempt to
exoticize. They are attempting to “de-orientalize” themselves and their language with an