Review a common approach in the analysis of Iranian painting in reference to criticism of deconstruction

Abstract

This study is aimed in presenting case criticism of 3 articles, which are representatives of wide range of studies conducted in field of Iranian art and painting in view of author and is also aimed in presenting the fundamental weakness of these studies in proving their claims and challenge language used in them. As the feature and the goal of using this language is the foundation of certain differentiation of western art and Iranian painting and dual concepts such as light and darkness, two-dimensional and three-dimensional, material and spiritual concepts are considered, the deconstructive criticism could be useful. Particularly, due to the criticism applied by post-structuralism critics like Paul De Man based on same concepts on west art tradition, the question is that on which language the definite differentiation of west and east art (Iranian painting and Western painting tradition) and considering origin for one of them is realized and whether is this language a research, perfect, fair, universal and reliable language or not? The assumption is that it seems that the language used in some analyses on Iranian painting trying to determine completely different and higher position of Iranian painting is a general and reliable language on basis on dual concepts that their definite differentiation is doubted in view of deconstructive critic. As the analytical language used by Iranian scholars is similar to language challenged in West culture and art by themselves, the definite differentiation and superiority considered between Iranian and Western art could be doubted and questioned.