Document Type : Original Article
Author
Associate Professor Department of Advanced Art Studies, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran.
Abstract
This article critically examines the significant shortcomings in Iranian art research over the past two decades, identifying seven fundamental problems that significantly hinder the development of this academic field. Academic art research in Iran began much later than in Western countries, only emerging in the late 1990s with the establishment of doctoral programs in Art research. In contrast to Western art history departments staffed by art historians, Iranian universities primarily employ instructors from diverse fields, such as the visual arts, philosophy, and literature. This has led to a distinct methodological approach in Iran that often diverges from international standards and established academic practices.
The most critical issue identified is methodological deficiencies that include inappropriate citations, failure to recognize important sources, overly elaborate titles, excessive section numbering, and non-functional tables and diagrams. Another significant methodological problem is the widespread phenomenon of the rūykard (approach), where researchers apply Western philosophical theories to Iranian art research without justification. For instance, dozens of articles analyze Qajar art through various theoretical lenses like discourse of power, semiotics, or intertextuality, essentially re-explaining the theory using Qajar art examples.
Another problem is the reliance on outdated early 20th-century art historical theories. For example, Western scholars like Ernst Kühnel and Frederick Martin initially classified Iranian art based on “schools” (e.g., Shiraz, Tabriz, Baghdad schools). However, after World War I, more precise methodologies developed by scholars like Richard Ettinghausen and Oleg Grabar moved beyond this simplistic classification. Despite this evolution, Iranian researchers continue using the old “dated “school framework, with some even dividing Tabriz painting into first and second schools as if only two distinct styles existed throughout its long history.
Traditionalist approaches represent another major issue, characterized by scholars like René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Henry Corbin, and Titus Burckhardt, who base their analyses on metaphysical concepts and Sufi-inspired ideas. These approaches treat Islamic art as embodying eternal wisdom and interpret visual forms as reflections of transcendent dimensions. While these scholars focus on religious art like Qur’anic manuscripts and mystical miniatures, they remain silent on non-religious architecture and handicrafts. Traditionalist writings lack innovation in both topic selection and the production of new discoveries, often recycling the same concepts. Symbolism and aesthetics studies in Iranian art research frequently suffer from arbitrary interpretations. Some researchers assign multiple symbolic meanings to numerical patterns without logical evidence.
Translation problems constitute another significant issue. Some translations significantly alter the original content, such as Gray’s Persian Painting, where the translator presented a free interpretation, removed all citations and footnotes, and essentially converted the text into a lecture. Some translators insert personal opinions or others’ views into the text, as seen in the book Adab va fanun-i naqqashi va kitab arayi by Yves Porter, where the translator added numerous footnotes criticizing the author.
The third problem concerns limited foreign language proficiency and weak library resources. While English is important, it is insufficient alone, as relevant research may exist in Turkish, Japanese, German, or Italian. Economic challenges and a lack of inter-library loan systems mean many books are only available in specific libraries, making access difficult for students outside Tehran.
Book fabrication represents another plague, facilitated by digital printing technology that allows small print runs. Academic books fall into problematic categories: pure compilations that add no new knowledge, books created by stringing together direct quotations, non-academic works attempting to appear academic, thesis publications without adaptation for broader audiences, and books that are essentially translations from one or two foreign sources with minimal original content. Many compilation books on general topics, such as “History of Persian Art” or “Iranian Miniature Painting,” merely republish low-quality images from other sources without adding significant value.
The fifth issue is the proliferation of student articles and a quantitative focus. From just ten humanities journals in the 1990s, Iran now has over 480, with 53 focusing on art and architecture. To maintain their status, each journal must publish 24 articles annually, which can lead to a decline in quality. Students and professors co-author most articles, with graduate students often required to publish in order to progress toward their degree. This creates pressure for quantity over quality, resulting in articles that are students’ first writing experiences with insufficient guidance. Unlike top international journals, where most articles have a single author, Iranian academic journals indicate that only about one-fifth of articles are single-authored, with three-quarters being authored by students.
The sixth problem involves repetitive topics and a lack of field studies. Researchers often ignore thousands of untouched subjects, instead focusing on library-based studies of famous artworks. The final plague encompasses haste, inaccuracy, plagiarism, and theft. Many journals skip proofreading to reduce costs, leading to errors like reversed numbers (135 becoming 531) or mismatched image captions. Author errors include poor Persian grammar, incorrect punctuation, citation and reference mismatches, spelling mistakes, and incorrect page numbers. Some authors cite sources they have never seen or accessed. Plagiarism includes others’ research as one’s own. While plagiarism detection systems have improved, they still struggle to identify similarities in indirect quotations or translated texts.
In sum, the most important way to overcome these problems is to focus on content rather than form. Iranian researchers have adopted superficial aspects of Western academic formats (abstracts, keywords, multiple headings, tables) while neglecting the more demanding aspects like proper writing, accurate citations, and principled paragraph structure. To improve content quality, methodological issues must first be addressed, beginning with thorough preliminary research that identifies the most significant existing studies on a global scale, not limited to Persian-language sources. The goal of studying Safavid painting, architecture, or handicrafts should be to discover truths about Iranian art, not to apply inappropriate statistical methods or obscure theoretical concepts. Instead of forcing repetitive topics with so-called app” oaches,” researchers should focus on field studies in museums and historical sites, primary historical texts, and archaeological findings.
Keywords
