بررسی تحول کارکرد پیکرنگاری در دورۀ دوم قاجار و پیامدهای گفتمانی آن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه نمایش، دانشکده سینما و تئاتر، دانشگاه هنر، تهران، ایران.

2 کارشناسی ارشد پژوهش هنر، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ ،تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول).

10.22051/pgr.2021.36099.1109

چکیده

گفتمان تجدد در ایران حاصل مفصل‌بندی دال‌هایی چون عدالت، آزادی، اصلاحات، حول دال مرکزی قانون بود. به‌نحوی که دال قانون، در تعارض با دال مرکزی گفتمان دربار (پادشاه) قرار داشته و تک‌گویی حاکم بر گفتمان دربار را نشانه گرفته بود. هدف این مقاله نشان‌دادن تأثیر گفتمان تجدد بر بازنمایی چهرۀ پادشاهان قاجار بر اساس نظریۀ گفتمان در آرا لاکلا و موفه است. سؤال این است که تغییرات گفتمانی حاکم بر فضای اجتماع درگذار از عهد فتحعلی‌شاه به عهد ناصرالدین‌شاه، چه تأثیری در بازنمایی چهرۀ پادشاه و سایر افراد درگیر در مناسبات قدرت دارد. یافته‌های پژوهش، نشان می‏دهد که گفتمان تجدد با مرکزیت قانون قبل از هر چیز تفاسیر فرازمینی و تقدس‌نمایی را از چهرۀ پادشاهان این دوره زدوده است و دسترسی به شاه در تصاویر آسان‌تر شد. بدین‌ترتیب پیکر شاه در تصاویر واقعی و ملموس شد و تصاویر کارکرد خود را که تبلیغ و تثبیت قدرت بود رفته‌رفته از دست داد. به این ترتیب فردیت از رأس هرم قدرت به سطوح پایین‏تر انتقال یافت. با هژمونیک‌شدن دال قانون شاهد تغییرات بیشتری در بازنمایی هستیم. در واقع ژست‏های معرف قدرت به حاشیه رانده می‏شود و تصویر شاه از مرکزیت خارج می‏شود.
 
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Function of Evolution in Portraiture in Second Age of Qajar and Its Discursive Consequences

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farzan Sojoudi 1
  • Sُhelir Ataie 2
1 Professor, Department of Drama, Faculty of Cinema and Theater, University of Arts, Tehran, Iran.
2 M.A., Art Research, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).
چکیده [English]

Portraiture and making portraits of kings and others in a position of power have, for long, been considered to be an old tradition in human history. Generally speaking, in Iran, portraiture has always had a definite framework that originated in the world view and epistemology of Iranians. As of the mid-Qajar era, during their encounters with the West, Iranians’ epistemological framework underwent drastic changes due to global and regional developments at the time. This period marks the beginning of the so-called ‘discursive turn’.  Modernism, as a form of discourse, introduced new terms and concepts into the Persian language, which in turn, brought about big changes in several fields.
From Laclau and Mouffe’s perspective, social affairs serve as discursive structures which are fathomable but unstable and come with other potential meanings capable of challenging or transforming the structure of discourse. Inventing new terms such as ‘articulation’, ‘nodal point’, ‘floating signifier’, ‘element’, ‘moment’, and ‘chains of equivalence and difference’, Laclau and Mouffe showed how a cluster of signs with fixed meanings are formed into a network within a discourse, and therefore, create a unified meaning.
The second Qajar era witnessed a social conflict between two macro discourses over fixing the meaning. Signifiers of modern discourse were in inherent conflict with those of nodal discourse. Modern discourse appeared in the margins of nodal discourse and reached its climax during the Naseral-Din Shah era; ultimately, it was transformed into hegemony in the form of a political-social movement called ‘constitutionalism’. A question arises here: what is the effect of the changes made in the macro discourse dominating the society on the portraiture of Qajar kings and others holding a position of power?
The main issue in a theory of discourse is that how people in societies come to perceive themselves. In other words, how people in different societies define themselves, and, consequently, of what nature their behavioral pattern is. In hegemonic systems, there is no mutual relationship between the king and peasants. They are innately separated from each other. In hegemonic governments based on the coalition between religion and the royal court, ‘sacredness’ is a tool to legitimize the authoritative nature of the government. In such an authorial discourse, the king is the only competent authority who can establish laws, and since the institution of power is relying on the hegemonic signifier ‘Islam’, any opposition to the king is considered to be opposition to God and Shari'a. In accordance with the system of belief in this semantic structure, belief in religion and the unseen contributes to inherent inequality among humans. Reasoning has no function in this system.
Artistic production cannot be investigated out of the context of social discourses. During the Qajar era, nodal discourse gained legitimacy through possession of sources of producing culture and art. What was authorized to be represented had to be in accordance with legitimizing the government of the time. Nodal discourse, by nature, always selects the kind of media which are traditionally-oriented and have repetitive criteria. Such a discourse always tries to preserve its stability which puts it in a defensive position with fewer changes. The court intends to promote a kind of art that comes with fixed, established, and high norms.
As is observed, dictated orders by royal court discourse to the king’s identity have been portrayed. In his way, the function of the king’s portraits is to strengthen such ruling norms. Due to the gap in the epistemological framework of Iranians living during the second Qajar era, micro-and macrosocial relations between the king and the society kept a distance from symbolism and mythology. The king was no longer a sacred epic figure to be multiplied in impressionistic portraits. Although Fath-Ali shah must be portrayed with pure authority, the ideal representation of the king no longer bears importance in the new semantic system.
With discursive turn and establishment of such signifiers as ‘law’, ‘equality, and ‘justice’ as the most important signifiers of the marginalized discourse during the Naser al-Din shah era, degraded under the influence of the world view and the norms ruling over classic art, individuality and individual portraits gained ground and influenced, in turn, the nodal discourse in Iran. In portraits, faces kept a distance from ideals.
Evolving around such concepts as law, justice, and equality, a special kind of discourse penetrated the highest discursive levels in Iran as a result of which access to the king as an authority holding the highest position of power was made possible. With the king being in access more than before, he became smaller and smaller; in this way, his portraits became more realistic, more tangible, and more materialistic. with the establishment of laws, patriarchal interpretations of the king and his sacredness were marginalized and challenged, respectively, and the fact was differently articulated. As we move towards the hegemony of modern discourse, we witness a new representation of monarchy which is a result of developments like discourses intervening with the representation. Portraits attempting to renew the damaged legitimacy of the monarchy are signs of transcendental power and sacredness of the marginalized king. The elements of the portraits are material and the portrait maker had adopted a realistic manner towards the representations of the objects.
Modern discourse increased the king’s availability, with the halo around his head getting smaller, him becoming more real, and reality being differently articulated. An ideal representation of the king lost its legitimacy. Moving closer to harmonization of the signifier ‘law ‘, we experience growing changes.
To sum it up, it can be claimed that a study of portraiture in the first and second Qajar era shows changes in representation. Symbolism and sacralization of the king are increasingly marginalized, with the king dethroned; this is caused by factors accounted for by the change in the nature of discourses.
Portrait analysis reveals that a representation of the king as an existence dominating that of his audience is far from probable out of the context of discourse. In the portraits, the king keeps his social distance from the audience, in such a way that the distance is not an obstacle to him being easily recognized by the audience, nor is the nearness blurring the distinction between him and his audience. However, the situation is not the same as far as portraits made of common people are concerned. A most realistic representation of their faces is made in the center of the portrait with a direct look into the eyes of the audience, who may recognize such common faces as ‘insiders’.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Discourse analysis
  • Laclau and Mouffe
  • modernism
  • Portraiture
  • Qajar
آدمیت، فریدون (1351)  اندیشۀ ترقی و حکومت قانون، تهران: نشر خوارزمی.
آبراهامیان، یرواند (1392) ایران بین دو انقلاب، ترجمۀ احمد گل‌محمدی و محمد ابراهیم فتاحی، تهران: نشر نی.
افتخاری یکتا، شراره و محمدزاده، مهدی و نصری، امیر (1398) «تحلیل گفتمانی نحوۀ قرارگیری بدن فتحعلی‌شاه و بدن ناصرالدین‌شاه در سپهرِ نشانه‌ای قاجار»، مطالعات تطبیقی هنر، 9(18 )، صص 135- 121
پورمند، حسنعلی و داوری، روشنک (1391) «تصویر شاهانه و بازنمایی قدرت در قاجاریه؛ مطالعۀ تطبیقی در هنر دورۀ فتحعلی‌شاه و ناصرالدین‌شاه قاجار در گفتمان قدرت، مطالعات تطبیقی هنر، 2(4)،صص 93-105.
سلطانی، علی اصغر (1384) قدرت، گفتمان،زبان، تهران: نشر نی.
حسینی‌زاده، سیدمحمد‏علی (1383) «نظریۀ گفتمان و تحلیل سیاسی»، نشریۀ علوم سیاسی، شمارۀ 28، صص213 -181.
خلیلی، ناصر (1383) گرایش به غرب (در هنر قاجار، عثمانی و هند) ترجمۀ پیام بهتاش، تهران: نشر. 
خلجی، عباس (1386) ناسازه‏های نظری و ناکامی سیاسی گفتمان اصلاح طلبی(84-1376)پایان‏نامۀ دکتری تخصصی، دانشگاه تهران.
دیبا، لیلا. س. (1378) «تصویر قدرت و قدرت تصویر»، بنیاد مطالعات ایران، ایران‌نامه، سال 17 (3)، بازیابی از سایت مجلۀ مذکور ( بازیابی شده در تاریخ 25 آذر 1389) http://www.fis –iran.org
ذکا، یحیی (1382) زندگی و آثار استاد صنیع الملک، ویرایش و تدوین سیروس پرهام، تهران: نشر سازمان میراث فرهنگی کشور.
زیباکلام، صادق (1377) سنت و مدرنیته، تهران: روزنه.
سهیلی خوانساری، احمد (1367) کمال هنر(احوال وآاثار محمد غفاری) تهران: انتشارات علمی.
علیزاده بیرجندی، زهرا و ناصری، اکرم (1395) «پیوندهای هنر و سیاست در عصر قاجار و پیامدهای آن»، باغ نظر، سال13، شمارۀ42،صص 78- 67.
فلور، ویلم و چلکوسکی، پیتر و اختیار، مریم (1381) نقاشی و نقاشان در دورۀ قاجار، ترجمۀ یعقوب آژند، تهران: ایل شاهسون بغدادی.
قائم مقامی، جهانگیر (1320) قائم مقام در جهان ادب و سیاست، تهران: بی‌نا
کهن، گوئل (1360) تاریخ سانسور در مطبوعات ایران، تهران: نشر آگاه
میلز، سارا (1388) گفتمان، ترجمۀ فتاح محمدی، زنجان: نشر هزارۀ سوم.
مارش، دیوید و استوکر، جری (1378) روش و نظریه در علوم سیاسی ، ترجمۀ امیرمحمد حاجی یوسفی، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ مطالعات راهبردی.
میرزا ملکم‌خان(1355)، روزنامۀ قانون، به‌کوشش هما ناطق، تهران، امیرکبیر
میرزایی مهر، علی‌اصغر و حسینی، مهدی ( 1396) «کشف ارزش «تصویر» در هنر عهد فتحعلی‌شاه قاجار»، مبانی هنرهای تجسمی، صص 110- 99.
محمدزاده، مهدی (1386) «نشان‌های مصور و تقدیس قدرت در قاجاریه»، فصل‌نامۀ گلستان هنر، (8)، صص68-61
ورنویت، استفان ( 1383) گرایش به غرب، ترجمۀ پیام بهتاش، تهران: کارنگ.
یورگنسن، ماریان و فلیپس، لوئیز (1389) تحلیل گفتمان، ترجمۀ هادی جلیلی، تهران: نشر نی.
Refrences:
Diba,L.S.Q; Ekhtiar, M (1999) Royal Persian Painting: The Qajar Epoch 1785-1825. Brooklyn
Museum of Art: LB.Tauris Publishers. (text in Persian)
Raby, J. (1999) Qajar Portraits, I.B.Tauris Publishers: London. (text in Persian)
Adamiyat, F. (1972) The Politics Of Reform In Iran 1858-1880, Tehran: kharazmy. (text in
Persian)
Abrahamian, E. (2013) Iran Between two Revolution, (A.Golmohamadi. M.Fatahi trans.) Tehran:
nashre ney. (text in Persian)
Alizade Birjandi, Z.; Naseri, A (2016) The Links between Art and Politics during the Qajar Era
and Its Consequences, Bagh-e-Nazar (42) 67-78. (text in Persian)
Diba,L.S.Q; Ekhtiar, M(1999) Royal Persian Painting: The Qajar Epoch 1785-1825. Brooklyn
Museum of Art: LB.Tauris Publishers. (text in Persian)
Diba, L. (1999) Images Of Power And The Power of Image, Foundation For Iranian Studies.
Iran name (3) http://www.fis –iran.org. (text in Persian)
Eftekhary, Y.; SH. Mohamadzade, M. (2019) Discourse Analysis of the Position of Fath-Ali Shah
and Naser al-Din Shah’ s Bodies in Qajar Semiospher, journal of Motaleate Tatbighie Honar, (18)
121-135. (text in Persian)
Ghaemmaghami, G. (1941) Ghaem magham In The World of literature And Politics.Tehran: Bina
Hoseynizade, M. (2004) Discourse Theory And Political Analysis, jounal of Political Science,
(28) 181-213. (text in Persian)
KHalili, N. (2004) Occidentalism,(P. Behtash trans) Tehran: nashre karang. (text in Persian)
Mills, S. (2009) Discourse (F.Mohamadi trans), Zanjan: third millennium. (text in Persian)
Mirzaeimehr, A.; Hosseini, M (2018) An Assessment of the Valu of “Image” in the Art of Fath-
Ali shah Qajar’s Era, journal Of Theoretical Principles Of Visual Arts (4) 99-110. (text in Persian)
Mohamadzade, M (2007) Illustrated symbols and sanctification of power in Qajar, Golestane
Honar (8) 61-68. (text in Persian)
Pourmand, H.; Davari, R. (2012) The king’s portrait and the representation of power in Qajar
era comparative study of power discourse in the art of Fath-ali-shah and Naser-aldin shah’s era,
journal of Motaleate Tatbighie Honar, (4) 93-105. (text in Persian)
Raby, J. (1999) Qajar Portraits, I.B.Tauris Publishers: London. (text in Persian)
Soltani, A. (2005) Power, Discourse, Language, Tehran: Nashreney. (text in Persian)
Soheili khansari, A. (1988) Life and works of Mohamad ghafari, Tehran: Elmi Farhangi. (text
in Persian)
Yorgensen, M.; Philips, L (2010) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Tehran: Nashreney.
(text in Persian)
Zaka, Y. (2003) Life and works of Sani-AL-Molk, Tehran: Cultural Heritage Agency. (text in
Persian)
Zibakalam, S. (1998) Tradition and Modernity, Tehran: Roozbeh. (text in Persian)