سه رژیم حافظه در هنر معاصر جهان اسلام: تحلیل ثانویۀ متون نظری و گفت‌وگو با خیال عرفانی

Background: Contemporary Islamic art has become one of the most contested concepts in art history, cultural studies, and postcolonial theory. The juxtaposition of “Islamic” (referring to religious, historical, and epistemological traditions) and “contemporary” (pointing to the fluid, globalized conditions of the modern world) inherently carries a conceptual tension (Rabbat, 2018: 5). Previous studies have predominantly focused on a binary opposition between continuity with and rupture from Islamic tradition. While this dichotomy has generated valuable insights, it has largely overlooked the role of “memory politics” – the systems of selection, representation, and forgetting that determine how a discourse relates to its past. The continuity-oriented approach often falls into essentialism and reproduces Orientalist narratives of an “eternal Islam,” while the rupture-oriented approach risks nihilism and unintentionally repeats the colonial story of the “end of Islamic art” (Flood, 2007: 41; Shabout, 2007: 10). This study addresses these gaps by introducing an analytical framework based on three distinct “memory systems” and by localizing Western memory theories through Islamic mystical-philosophical concepts, particularly Ibn ‘Arabi’s “connected imagination” (al-khayāl al-muttaṣil).
Objectives: The primary objective is to discover how three memory systems are articulated in key theoretical texts on contemporary Islamic art, using a secondary thematic analysis with a shift in interpretive lens. Specifically, the study aims to: (1) identify dominant memory systems within the selected literature; (2) reinterpret these systems through Western memory theories (Assmann’s cultural/communicative memory, Boym’s restorative/reflective nostalgia, Ricœur’s work of memory); (3) localize these systems through Islamic mystical-philosophical concepts (Ibn ‘Arabi’s connected imagination, Mulla Sadra’s substantial motion, and a reading of Ibn Khaldun’s ‘aṣabiyyah as “civilizational memory”); and (4) determine which system best escapes essentialism and the continuity/rupture dichotomy. A further aim is to show how an Islamic mystical lens may provide ontological depth to a postcolonial concept such as Bhabha’s Third Space.
Method: This is a qualitative secondary analysis with a shift in interpretive lens – a theory-driven inductive approach. The corpus consists of eight purposively selected theoretical texts published after 2000, chosen for their explicit engagement with contemporary Islamic art and its relation to heritage. The sampling strategy was “maximum diversity” across three currents: continuity-oriented (Baslou, 2020; Yousefi, 2022), rupture-oriented (Shabout, 2007; Naef, 2015; Dadi, 2016), and hybrid/interstitial (Rabbat, 2018; Daftari, 2006; Lowry, 2006). The unit of analysis was the “meaning unit” (a sentence or phrase containing an independent claim about the relationship between contemporary art and past heritage). Analysis proceeded in six steps: (1) repeated reading and extraction of 47 meaning units; (2) open coding (e.g., “historical rupture” from Shabout, 2007: 10; “museum-like view of tradition” from Shabout, 2007: 146; “connection between artistic peak and spiritual engagement” from Baslou, 2020: 233); (3) clustering codes into three preliminary thematic groups (continuity, deconstruction, hybrid); (4) reinterpreting each cluster through memory theory (Assmann, Boym, Ricœur) to form three memory systems; (5) localizing each system with Islamic philosophical concepts; and (6) validation through theoretical triangulation and peer review. Reflexivity was employed to manage the researcher’s familiarity with Islamic philosophy, positioning the researcher “in dialogue with” (not inside or outside) the mystical tradition. The study is theory-driven and interpretive; its purpose is conceptual reconstruction, not statistical generalization.
Result: The analysis yielded three distinct memory systems. First, the System of Longing for Union (ḥasrat-e veṣāl) represents tradition as “living heritage” and “cultural memory represented as sacred,” emphasizing linear continuity. Baslou (2020: 188) defines Islamic art as “the manifestation of an epistemological-theological system” and considers the application of fundamental Islamic philosophical concepts as a necessary condition for calling a contemporary work “Islamic.” Yousefi (2022: 123) speaks of the “future-oriented concept of Islamic art,” focusing on re-creating lost identities in the face of modernity’s crises. This system aligns with Boym’s “restorative nostalgia” and Assmann’s “cultural memory.” Second, the System of Authentic Renewal (tajaddod-e aṣīl) turns tradition into “raw material for critique” and, through rupture, frees memory from sanctity. Shabout (2007: 10; 146) emphasizes the “rupture in the artistic creative process” and the “museum-like view of tradition” where heritage is no longer part of everyday life. Naef (2015: 104) notes that modern Islamic art is “rarely raised by artists themselves, but mostly by critics, curators, and art historians.” This system corresponds to Boym’s “reflective nostalgia” and Ricœur’s “work of memory.” Third, the System of Mystical Allegory (tamṯīl-e ‘erfānī) uses tradition neither as truth nor as its negation, but as an “allegory” for the contemporary condition. Rabbat (2018: 7) places contemporary Islamic art in an “in-between position.” Daftari (2006: 8) emphasizes the “redefinition, deconstruction, and challenging of tradition.” Lowry (2006: 41, 61) speaks of “Islamic cosmopolitanism” and “fluid hybrid identity.” When localized through Ibn ‘Arabi’s “connected imagination” (Ibn Arabi, 2016: 120-125), this system gains ontological depth: in-betweenness is not merely a transitional social position but a mode of mediation between matter and meaning, past and present. Thus, it can be placed in dialogue with Bhabha’s “Third Space” (Bhabha, 1994: 28), though the two concepts are not identical; the former is ontological and mystical, while the latter is discursive and political. To illustrate, works by Shirin Neshat (“Women of Allah,” 1994-1997) and Monir Farmanfarmaian (mirror works) are briefly mentioned as examples where traditional elements (calligraphy, mirror, veil) are used neither to restore nor negate heritage, but as allegories for the paradoxical condition of contemporary Muslim women.
Conclusion: The three memory systems coexist in the literature on contemporary Islamic art, each offering a different response to the crises of spirituality and modernity. What this research reveals is not the superiority of one system over another, but the necessity of attending to the “situatedness” of each system in specific contexts. The System of Longing for Union is effective where civilizational restoration is a priority; the System of Authentic Renewal is useful for criticizing traditional institutions; however, the System of Mystical Allegory has the strongest theoretical capacity to escape essentialism and the continuity/rupture binary. Its main contribution lies in translating memory theory into a nuanced, locally grounded model and showing that Islamic mystical philosophy can serve not merely as an illustration of Western theory, but as a critical interlocutor. The findings remain interpretive and corpus-bound; the model should be tested in future case studies, comparative visual analyses, and interviews with artists. The article’s theoretical contribution is introducing “memory systems” as an analytical tool and establishing Ibn Khaldun as a mediating link between Western memory theory and Islamic mysticism.