▲ 42 points
back
17 comments
No mention of Pamuk’s Nobel Prize winning novel My Name is Red, which is all about Istanbul and the underrated art form of Islamic miniatures.
I came across this book in a bizarre way, but if I told you, you probably wouldn’t believe me. Let’s just call it a “completely unexplainable coincidence.”
In any case, it’s a really fascinating look at an art form virtually no one in the Western world has heard of, yet played a huge role in the various Turkish, Persian, Mughal/Indian and Arabic empires. All set in 1500s Istanbul. Highly recommended.
One idea from it that has stuck with me: the Ottoman miniaturists criticized Western forms of drawing perspective, as they presented the world from the view of a human being and not from an omniscient God figure’s viewpoint. Hence the top-down viewpoint of most miniatures. I had always associated the progression toward realism as an “improvement” over pre-perspective paintings, but the omniscient viewpoint really makes a lot of sense conceptually.
I know you say we wouldn’t believe it, but would you be willing to share how you discovered the book?
Sure! At the time I was living in Brooklyn. For whatever reason, I was reading the Wikipedia article about Islamic aniconism, the prohibition on figurative artwork, one morning [1]. I had very little knowledge of Islam and didn’t know anything about Ottoman miniatures. Not sure why or how I came across the Wikipedia article, probably just a random click from something else.
A few hours later, I was walking through Bed-Stuy (neighborhood in Brooklyn) and saw a red book just laying on a stoop. It looked like someone meant to throw it away, so I picked it up and read the description. It turns out to be My Name is Red, which is all about the Islamic prohibition on images; the main plot line is about an artist who is killed while working on a figurative artwork for the Sultan.
I’ve had two or three other experiences like this in my life, each with unexplainable coincidences. I’m not sure what to make of them. Clearly they are much more than a mere Baader–Meinhof phenomenon.
Thank you for sharing! Coincidences like that are strange but absolutely do occur.
The article contains 2500 words and 3 photos.
Talk about a misleading title...
If you like to discover more on İstanbul see Ara Güler's photos which are also used by Pamuk in some of his books.
I'm surprised to see photos of women with their heads, arms, and legs showing. Is this common in Turkey? If so, where else in the Middle East?
It is of course very common and is the great majority (>99.999% in some places) and less common (maybe 50%) in others. Turkey has a very strange view in the US imho, I was from California and when I went to Istanbul to work in a startup (funny&long story) my friends thought I'm going to a desert in the middle of nowhere or something; when Istanbul is literally the biggest metropolitan center in Europe. The reality and American people's image of Turkey are extremely mismatched.
I wrote about my views on Istanbul and Turkey here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25164997
Turkey spent most of the twentieth century instituting secularism at every level of society, so violently that a backlash eventually erupted against it.
I’m not particularly sure how I feel about it, as the issue is complex, but I do think that it’s unfortunate that modern Turks are unable to read their own Ottoman history due to the change from Arabic to Latin script.
Sorry but it's naive to think that the only reason Turks cannot read their own Ottoman history is the change of script. Let me try to explain myself briefly:
1 - Unfortunately Anatolia historically had a very low literacy rate for centuries. This still has a profound effect on Turkish reading. Although there were great works of art, Turkish population is not deeply interested in literature or factual history.
2- One can find translations of any material abundantly. If someone is/were interested in any historical artifact I am sure there would be plenty of options or even better tens of thousands of unemployed young university graduates who could help your curiosity.
3- Even if someone were able to read the arabic script fluently. Literally no one could derive any meaning from it without proper education. In fact there are University Faculties dedicated to teaching "Ottomanees" as the language beares very little resemblance to today's Turkish. Literally >two thirds of our vocabulary were loan words.
4- The arabic script was phonetically incompatible with Turkish, vowels which are second thought in arabic script are very much important in Turkish. Hence the alphabet was already a modified one. This was also part of the reason behind poor literacy rates. Turkish written in arabic script was very hard to teach and master.
There are many more arguments behind the very much needed change. These are only a couple off the top of my head
No, I mean I am aware of all that and certainly the script change isn’t the only reason that Ottoman Turkish is inaccessible.
Even if there were good reasons for the change, it’s still unfortunate in my mind. It’s a bit like if American documents like the Declaration of Independence or Gettysburg Address were in language other than English. Sure, translations would be available and the actual speeches use words most contemporary Americans probably don’t know anyway. But something would indeed be lost, IMO, if the connection were severed.
With 3, as far as I understand it, that’s essentially just because of language reforms and educational choices designed to distance the new Turkish language from its Ottoman past. Certainly not an inevitable conclusion.
Regarding 4, the Latin alphabet isn’t particularly suited for writing English either, yet here we are.
Clarifying my third point there: while modern Turkish is based on historical "non-palace" speech, there was definitely an aspect of creation and coining of new words.
After the foundation of the modern state of Turkey and the script reform, the Turkish Language Association (TDK) was established in 1932 under the patronage of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, with the aim of conducting research on Turkish. One of the tasks of the newly established association was to initiate a language reform to replace loanwords of Arabic and Persian origin with Turkish equivalents.[23] By banning the usage of imported words in the press, the association succeeded in removing several hundred foreign words from the language. While most of the words introduced to the language by the TDK were newly derived from Turkic roots, it also opted for reviving Old Turkish words which had not been used for centuries.
Owing to this sudden change in the language, older and younger people in Turkey started to differ in their vocabularies. While the generations born before the 1940s tend to use the older terms of Arabic or Persian origin, the younger generations favor new expressions. It is considered particularly ironic that Atatürk himself, in his lengthy speech to the new Parliament in 1927, used a style of Ottoman which sounded so alien to later listeners that it had to be "translated" three times into modern Turkish: first in 1963, again in 1986, and most recently in 1995.
Not only the change in script. Written Ottoman Turkish was a different language than Turkish, basically. It was so replete with Persian vocabulary and grammatical constructions that the average Turk wouldn't be able to make sense of it even if they could read the script.
Also, Ataturk's language reform led to the forced replacement of many 19th-century Turkish words with neologisms, to the point where the old words have been utterly forgotten.
Yes this is absolutely common in Turkey. Please do not believe in the press trying to portray Turkey as being totally overrun by a fundamentalist autocratic regime.
In fact even these photographs are portraying the poorest and probably some of the most conservative neighborhoods of Istanbul.
There are 10's millions of Turks who are secular and striving to keep modernity alive in this part of the world.
I have been to Istanbul multiple times, and rode my motorcycle across Turkey. It never struck me as a fundamentalist country. Women in Istanbul or Izmir dress just like anywhere in the Western world, and I don't recall seeing any veiled faces in Turkey. I shared many drinks with local friends, and shortly lived on a street that was famous for its crossdressers.
You might struggle to find beer in smaller cities, and it's undeniably more conservative there, but you could make the same judgement about any western country.
I'd say that things don't get complicated around religion, but around politics. It's hard to ignore that Turkey is sinking into authoritarianism, and though a tourist might not feel the effects, he might pick up its distinct smell.
Turkey is a secular country. Atatürk did much to westernise his country.
I find religious conservatism in many countries to coincide more with a family's economic status.
yes, it is. funny thing, 20 years ago people who wear scarf couldn't go into public places such as universities. Turkey is a laicite country in constitution, got relaxed after erdogan got into power, now more like secular country, people can use scarf in public places. west usually has islamistic picture of turkey due to constant propaganda. in reality, I was surprised when I have come to london and saw so many people with burqa, and this was first time I saw a burqa in real life.