Architectural Theory Review

ISSN: 1326-4826 (Print) 1755-0475 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ratr20

ART HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLISM: A

Hermeneutical Critique

Selen Morko

To cite this article: Selen Morko (2003) ART HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURAL
SYMBOLISM: A Hermeneutical Critique, Architectural Theory Review, 8:2, 124-133, DOI:
10.1080/13264820309478489

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264820309478489

Published online: 28 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ratr20

Download by: [Singapore Polytechnic] Date: 04 October 2017, At: 02:21

 Architectural Theory Review

ART HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURAL

SYMBOLISM: A Hermeneutical
Critique

SELEN MORKOQ
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

I propose that the symbolic in general, and especially the symbolic in

art, rests upon an intricate interplay of showing and concealing. '

In Truth and Method Gadamer views the study of history from a hermeneuti-
cal perspective, presenting a new way of dealing with and understanding
historical texts. He sees the wholeness of a historical tradition as an illusion,
lie argues that the split between the self-conscious historical object and the
observercannolbeclearcul. Accordingly, both the historicity oj 'understanding
and the prejudices of the observer play important roles in the interpretation
process. With reference to Gadamer's revision of the 'reality of history' and
the 'reality of historical understanding,' this paper aims to examine the art
historical discourse on Islamic architecture by concentrating on a specific
article. Oleg Grabar's "Symbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture."

Introduction
For more than a century, an historical discourse has been contributing to the field of Islamic
architecture. However, the limits and potential of this discourse and the legitimacy of what has been
accepted as Islamic architecture have not been explored in depth. The need for such an interrogation
especially arises when the meaning of Islamic architecture is considered. Ait historical discourse
relies on a chronological continuum, and it is almost more imponant to exhibit precision and rigour
in chronological integrity rather than dwell on critical exceptions or details that may justify- the
heterogeneous nature of the topic.

Nevertheless, reflection on meaning requires interpretation, a hermeneutical dialogue with the object of
the inquiry, and a consciousness of exceptions and details. Any object that stands as unfamiliar may be
the subject of interpretation for which hermeneutics provides the appropriate ground of analysis.
 Vol. 8 No. 2, 2003

In this paper, I shall focus on a significant essay in the literature, Oleg Grabar's Symbols andSigns in
Islamic Architecture, which provides a convenient ground to see how meaning in Islamic architecture
operates according to art historical discourse. Before going into the details of the essay, histon' and
history writing will be summarized from Gadamer's perspective in order to sketch the possibility of a
hermeneutic consciousness towards the object of histon'. The overall paper is a critique of Grabar's
essay from Gadamer's viewpoint, which may shed light on the bigger picture of the influence of art
historical discourse on Islamic architecture, from a hermeneutical point of view. Specifically, the
paper aims to review the essay by evaluating its object, subject and anticipations: the position of the
historian, the general prospect of the object from the horizon of the historian, and the problematic
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

interpretation of meaning in terms of symbols and signs.

Gadamer and History

In Truth and Method Hans-Georg Gadamer discusses the notion of understanding through different
processes, beginning with the experience of a work of art and ending with the interpretation of
historical texts. Understanding, he argues, works in the same way in these diverse experiential cases:
its main aim is to transform foreignness into familiarity. In each separate case, he further argues,
"The discovery of the true meaning of a text or a work of art is neverfinished;it is in fact an infinite
process."2 This multivalence of meaning leads to his important conclusion: hermeneutics is the core
paradigm of all human sciences.3

Gadamer views the study of histon- from a hermeneutical perspective, presenting a new way of
dealing with and understanding historical texts. He sees the wholeness of a historical tradition as
an illusion: teleology without a telos. All historical works claim universality; however, the historical
tradition in itself is fragmentary.1 Gadamer argues that the split between the historical object and the
self-conscious observer cannot be clear-cut, since histon-. as the past, continues through the present
and the historicality of the historian is always effective in the process. Aside from the naive assumption
of historicism, which tends to reconstruct the spirit of the age," Gadamer does not see the time that
separates the obsetver and the historical object "as a gulf to be bridged."" For him. this time difference
should be recognized and differentiated as something fruitful since it is mostly impossible to recover
a dead meaning and that each interpretation is in its own context a new creation of meaning and a
new way of seeing the past. Accordingly, both the historicity of understanding and the prejudices
of the obsen'er play important roles in the study and writing of histon'. seen as mutual dialogical
engagements with the historical object. In this dialogue, the standpoint for interpretation becomes
the position of the historian, which involves his/her past existence, experiences and prejudices. .An
understanding without prejudices, Gadamer suggests, is the unattainable goal of the Enlightenment.
One should be aware of one's own prejudices in order to see how they influence the understanding
process." In this context, Gadamer uses prejudice as a neutral concept that carries both negative and
positive meanings, which are open for judgment.
 Architectural Theory Review

Just as a way of thinking without prejudices is impossible, Gadamer stresses that a standpoint that is
beyond any standpoint in dealing with history is illusory. Gadamer conceptualises the historian's position
and standpoint as "situation" in order to accentuate its boundaries both temporally and spatially. The
situation' determines the limits and the possibilities of the vision of the observer which he defines
as the horizon' for the historian. "The historical movement of human life." he writes, "consists in
the fact that it is never utterly bound to any one standpoint, and hence can never have a truly closed
horizon. The horizon is, rather, something into which we move and that moves with us."8 Effective
engagement is achieved only through what Gadamer calls the "fusion of horizons.' that unites the
observer with the object of the historical focus.9 This fusion of horizons is not a stable moment, as the
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

horizon of the observer changes in time and in various engagements. The horizon is always affected
by the environment, condition, tradition, in short, the historical situatedness of the historian.

Importantly, Gadamer's proposition privileges the object while interrogating the role of the advanced
subject. It is engaged by many disciplines within the human sciences, especially for reconceptualizing
methodological issues, which has serious implications for the study of an. architecture and history.
According to Gadamer, "The true historical object is not an object at all. but the units'of the one and the
other, a relationship in which exist both the reality of history and the reality of historical understanding
itself."10 The subjectivity of the historian is thus bounded only by the historical 'other.' as a hard
responsibility, because the historical 'other' requires unconditional openness to the tradition to which
it belongs. Gadamer calls openness to tradition a basic quality of effective-historical consciousness and
this is the key to attain a level of understanding as an effective-historical relation."

Thus. Gadamer's evaluations of history may provide a ground to make a hermeneutical critique of the
an historical discourseon Islamic architecture by concentrating on how it perceives the historical'other'
(artefact, text or historical argument) and how it deals with understanding of meaning manifested by
the historical 'other.'

Grabar's "Symbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture"

Theevaluationoftheinfluenceofan historical discourseon Islamicarchitecture in relation toGadamer's
revision of the 'reality of history' and the 'reality of historical understanding' exhibits difficulties in
terms of effective-historical consciousness. The distant positioning of the historian and the abstract
chronological nature of the discourse itself generally foster a one-sided expression of its object. It is
possible to realize that there rise problems in coping with cultural and social details as a result of the
distant positioning of the discourse towards its object, particularly when analysed through meaning
and symbolism. Within the already existing literature. Oleg Grabar's article, "Symbols and Signs in
Islamic Architecture," presents an outstanding example for examining how art historical discourse
sees Islamic architecture in terms of its meaning and symbolism. Oleg Grabar's article presents both
an overall review and a critique of the studies on the topic as well as his own evaluations. Grabar's
reflections in this article are further developed in his later work. Mediation of Ornament 11992).
 Vol. 8 No. 2, 2003

which examines the psychological dimensions of meaning and symbolism in Islamic art, dwelling
mainly on ornamentation and calligraphy.'- The impact of the early article designates the approach
of the later book, where he adopts an attitude of seeing the symbolism of Islamic an as the subject of
aesthetic taste freed from historical contexts. However, for Necipoglu, such context-free interpretations
are the results of perpetuating the "decorative versus iconographic" polemic, which should in fact
be dissolved in the Islamic context in order to see the plurality in context-bound and multilayered
meanings.13 Here, after a summary of Grabar's article, I will point to a similar conclusion through
hermeneutical evaluations.
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

Grabar begins his article, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture," with a long quotation from
Eliade to show that interpretation is the central and most difficult problem when dealing with symbols.
Interestingly, he sees his own words as "rambling views, opinions, and interpretations developed over
the years by an outsider trying to understand a world which is not his own."14 His article then follows a
common path of critiquing existing literature on the symbolism of Islamic architecture, while offering
suggestions for future directions. His basic attitude is to look for the already existing historical clues
to recurrently used forms that are specific for Islamic art and architecture in order to present and
re-evaluate them in the search for identity in relation to contemporary Islamic architecture.

Existing literature on the symbolism of Islamic an and architecture consists mainly of works that see
architecture as a means of transmitting religious meaning, focusing primarily on the Neoplatonic
works of Sufis.15 In dealing with these studies, Grabar makes the following comments: "Most of the
conclusions are premature because they lack scientific precision. There is a loose relationship between
existing data and driven conclusions. Islamic character of forms is not clear or specific enough."'0
Grabar instead looks for the clues of precise historical data that can embody cultural parameters of
Islam embedded in the built form. He prefers to refer to these as "symbols and signs."

Throughout the anicle Grabar uses the terms 'symbols' and 'signs' recurrently and together. Essentially,
he makes the basic definitive distinction between symbols and signs and images as such: "A symbol
is different from a sign, which indicates something, and an image, which represents it; a symbol
defines something and connotes it but does not circumscribe it as does a sign..."'" But, in the case
of abstract Islamic symbol systems he discovers the inefficiency of this semiologic definition and he
finds it difficult to come to a clear distinction between symbols and signs.

For Grabar, Islamic architecture exhibits a low symbolic charge and can be copied and imitated
elsewhere.w There exist certain distinct monuments such as the Alhambra or Taj Mahal that exhibit
symbolic richness but these unique examples do not change the low symbolic quality because, for
him, there is no temporal continuity or congruence between them. Regarding these monuments
Grabar argues that:
 __

The Dome of the Rock, the mosque of Damascus, the north dome of Isfahan's Friday Mosque,
the Alhambra, and the Taj Mahalbuildings for which a highly intense meaning can be provided
for the time of their creationall lost their specific meaning soon thereafter. It is indeed as
though Islamic culture as a whole consistently rejected any attempt to compel specific symbolic
meanings in architecture comparable to those of Christianity and Hinduism (with their symbolic
connotation in plan, elevation and decoration).19

Grabar maintains that from this low symbolic charge of architecture thererisesthe problem of ambiguity
and this may be a difficult}' for any culture to cope with in expressing its characteristics in visual forms.
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

Hegives historical reasons for Islam's reluctance towards visual symbolism. Islam inherited symbolically
rich cultural traditions but in order to avoid idolatry it did not continue to use visual symbols. It still
developed its own symbolic norms, however, because, as Grabar claims, secular an was less affected
by religious visual restrictions.20

Following these ideas Grabar identifies the potentials and limitations of three different methods to
study symbolism in Islamic architecture. He calls thefirstone Pure Theory. This relies on philosophy
or anthropology in order tofinda framework to decipher the meaning of historically situated visual
symbols and signs.21 Considering the works of philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein, Grabar argues
that their conceptions of symbols and signs are usually too abstract to be engaged in a real cultural
context. In this view, the abstraction of such theoretical approaches makes their conclusions too
obvious, as, for example, seeing a wall in a congregational building as being a separator between the
sacred and the profane."

The other two methods proposed by Grabar are historical approaches, such as the discussion of the
Islamic written evidence ranging from the Quran and Hadith to literature that may embody written
references to visual symbols and signs and a search for symbols and signs in the comparison of
monuments.23 In comparing monuments, Grabar expresses the necessity to make both synchronic
and diachronic cross-examinations in order to search for possible continuities in tradition.24

To sum up, Grabar's evaluations in the essay are enlightening about how meaning operates according
to the an historical discourse. His way of dealing with symbols and signs as visual systems of cultural
expression exhibits difficulties in terms of interpretation. For instance, Grabar locates the authenticity of
the inteqjretation in the scope and the validity of the historical investigation. However, from Gadamer's
view of history he may leave significant avenues for understanding unexplored. From the suggestions
of Gadamer it is possible to bring the role of the living historian in the interpretative process.

Viewed from Gadamer's standpoint Grabar's text lends itself to critical examination, especially with
reference to the concept of effective-historical consciousness. Grabar's position in relation to the
object of his historical analysis, Islamic architecture, and his definition of symbols and signs as a way of
approaching tradition can obscure insights which may be gained from hermeneutical investigations.
 j2a

Effective-Historical Consciousness
The first problem seems to arise from Grabar's outsider positioning as a historian in considering a
dialogue with the historian's object. In this essay, as in many of his other writings, Grabar sees his
approach as Western, which is problematic when it comes to understanding a foreign world with
methods from outside.-"5 An outsider who tries to speak on behalf of his object assumes a God's eye
position, a situation described by Gadameras trying to have a standpoint that is beyond any standpoint.
For Gadamer, such a standpoint is always illusory because the historian can never be freed from her/his
own historicality and no interpretation can assume peremptory objectivity.
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

Another consequence is that the distant position of the historian may create the problem of homogenising
her/hisobject. The use of the term 'Islamic architecture,' for example, exhibits difficulties and ambiguities
throughout Grabar's article. Most of the time, the referent seems to be culture; yet from time to time
he also refers specifically to religion.20 Grabar seems sure about the homogeneous cultural unity of
Muslim people. Most notably, in all his examples he talks about an 'average' Muslim's perception.
However, in reality, the overarching term of Islamic architecture covers several ethnographic groups
and geographies so different that it is difficult to see them as belonging to a common culture.

To employ the term 'Islam' to scrutinize different cultures as merely 'Islamic' requires a distancing that
creates problems when dealing with symbolism and meaning. Unlike archaeology or an collection,
which may basically rely on the collecting, naming and classifying of objects, symbolism and meaning
call for interpretation. Interpretation requires a mutual dialogue and conversation with the object of
the historian, as emphasised by Gadamer. When the opportunity for such a dialogue is created, the
multivalence and richness of details in each of the separate contexts unfold, and it can be seen that
it is almost impossible to evaluate an overall summarizing crux for meaning or symbolism for the so-
called Islamic architecture. At Grabar's scene a fusion of horizons never occurs because his horizon of
anticipation is so wide that it cannot begin to cover a dialogue with a particular historical object. The
ambition of reaching comprehensive andfixedmeaning embedded in the depths of history makes him
miss the opportunity to see the possibility of reading multivalent meanings transformed and created
in the process of tradition. Relying on Gadamer, Snodgrass and Coyne put the nature of meaning
according to hermeneutics as such: "Meaning is not fixed and firm, but is historical; it changes with
time and as the situation changes."2" Therefore, meaning for hermeneutics is in flux and situational
as well as it is enmeshed in a network of other meanings.28

Symbols, Signs and Ambiguity of Tradition

Throughout Grabar's essay it is possible to observe ambiguities that depend on different reasons consisting
of questions and definitions which arise when dealing with symbols and signs as visual systems of cultural
expression. One of them is to reveal precise,fixedsymbols and signs as visual codes of tradition that
have survived unchanged throughout history. This type of approach to tradition is quite in contrast with
 12Q

Gadamer's proclamation: "The historical life of a tradition depends on constantly (sic) new assimilation
and interpretation."-'9

Thus, it can be said that although Grabar's insistence on the interpretation of symbols and signs carries
the clue of a consciousnessraisedfor a dialogue with Islamic tradition, from a hermeneutical perspective
his approach is one-sided. Grabar only prefers to trace what is inherently unchanged in the built form.311
He sees symbols and signs as decipherable codes of meaning embedded in the continuous and recurrent
use of similar forms in terms of plan, elevation or decoration. Thus, for him, "The specifically Islamic
character of forms israrelyclear or specific enough."31
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

Grabar's restless quest for the mechanised continuity of form in tradition, what he prefers to call symbols
and signs, seems to cam' the influences of an eariier work on Medieval Western architecture. This is Erwin
Panofsky's Gothic Architecture and ScMastic Philosophy, a seminal study which made the cautious
methodological engagement of art history with semiology almost legitimate.32 However, in the history
of Islamic architecture, such a structural relationship does not exist between architectural form and any
state of mind or product in such a direct way. This irrelevancy is a result of incommensurable social
structures and the mental mechanisms of the two worlds. It is hard tofindan Islamic counterpart for
the unique patronage of the church in Medieval Europe and most of the buildings included within the
term Islamic architecture were not designed in accordance with systematic abstractions such as plan,
elevation or section.33

However, such a comparison with Western products usually creates the outcome that the real artefact
which is the embodiment of Islamic architecture never fulfils the ideals of the art historical discourse
called Islamic architecture.' As a solution to cover this dilemma Kuban proposes that: "If we accept the
fact that formal symbolism in Muslim culture operates on a level below the transcendental, i.e. religious
significance, our problem will be easier to solve."31 It may be hard to give effective, ready-made solutions,
but what seems an important missed point is that openness to tradition in Gadamer's terms means
to accept its being different and its foreignness with an endeavour to understand it. Therefore, being
Western only emerges as a problem when a reduction or domestication of the unfamiliar is done in terms
of imposing norms on it from a position outside.

As an added issue effected by his interrogation of symbols and signs, Grabar judges the validity of such
sign and symbol systems as expressions of past memories and experiences for the people of today.
Unfortunately, when Grabar judges the validity of these past experiences and memories for the present,
he disregards the fruitful distance between history and the presentfromwhich arises the 'situation' and
historicality of the historian according to Gadamer. Grabar never gives credit to the idea that, even if
such validity of past experiences and memories does not exist in the present, this non-existence may still
highlight the distance and gap between tradition and the present day, and may explain the discursive
modernity ofIslamic cultures within a more realistic historical perspective. Gadamerasserts, "The historian
is concerned with the whole of historical tradition, which he has to combine with his own present existence
if he wants to understand it and which in this way he keeps open for the future.""
 121

Grabar's problematic definition of fixed symbols and signs in fact refer to his quest for precision in the
structure of tradition, however fragmentary, rather than an endeavour to understand the implications
of it as an ungraspable whole. But, it may not be possible to make such precise evaluations about the
concept of tradition in general. Ak_n, after Gadamer, convincingly accentuates the ambiguity and
complexity of the nature of tradition. He says,

The concept of tradition is in opposition to history but it is still included in history. History can
continue orfinishtradition. But, the features that determine tradition are the reiterations that
appear in a long period and that defy the temporality of it. In the meantime, all background
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

and ideological contexts are rubbed out and form transforms into a traditional topos. This is a
situation akin to that of the symbol. Symbol, too, gets abstracted into alienation from its starting
point through reiterations.36

Conclusion
From reading Grabar's text through Gadamer's vision one question arises: should art historical discourse
only be restricted to what is inherent in built form when dealing with meaning and symbolism in
architecture? How should one deal with the intentions and expectations of the native people in the
process of loading meaning to such buildings? Towards the end of his essay Grabar makes some
valuable evaluations to which he does not give credit in his conclusion. He asks: "Can one extend the
point to propose that the true uniqueness of the Muslim visual symbolic system lies not in the forms
it takes but in the relationship it creates, indeed compels, for its users?"5"

To make stylistic definitions and to see the historical building only as an object of eclectic art history
cover only some part of truth. The uncovered pan seems to embody rich and multivalent meanings which
have the potential to generate profound understandings in specific historical contexts. According to
Gadamer, architecture gives shape to space and leaves it free; it embraces all other ans and bodies:

If a building is a work of an, then it is not only the artistic solution of a building problem posed
by the contexts of purpose and of life to which it originally belongs, but somehow preserves
these, so that it is visibly present even though the present manifestation of the original purpose
is strange. Something in it points back to the original... |T)hus architecture, the most statuary
of all an forms, shows how secondary 'aesthetic differentiation' is. A building is never primarily
a work of art.58

Notes
1
Hans- Georg Gadamer. The Relevance of the Beautiful and Other Essays, Edward Bemasconi. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 1986. p. 33.
2
Hans- Georg Gadamer. Truth and Method. London: Sheed&Ward, 1975, p. 265.
 Architectural Theory Review

3
"It is to the development of historical consciousness that hermeneutics owes its central function within the
human sciences." Gadamer. Truth and Method, p. 147.
1
"The ideal of universal history must become a special problem for the historical world view, in as much as
the rxx)k of history is a fragment that, so far as any particular present time is concerned, breaks of in the
dark." Gadamer. Truth and Method, pp. 175-179.
1
Gadamer. Truth and Method, p. 264.
"A person who does not accept that he is dominated by prejudices will fail to see what is shown by their
light." Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 324.
"Gadamer uses the term [horizon) both in a temporal and spatial sense: an horizon is historically formed,
and represents the perspective bequeathed us by our past." Adrian Sncxigrass. Asian Studies and the Fusion
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

of Horizons, in Gadamer: Action and Reason conference, 1991. p. 37.

8
Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 271.
9
Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 340.
in
Gadamer, Truth andMetlxxI, p. 267.
1
' Gadamer, Truth and Method, pp. 267-324.
12
Oleg Grabar. Mediation of Ornament. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1992.
13
Giilru Necipoglu. The Topkapi Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture. Santa Monica CA:
Getty Center for the History of An and Humanities, 1995, p. 83.
" Oleg Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic Architecture," in Renata Holod and Darl Rastorfer (eds), Archi-
tecture and Community. New York: Aperture, 1983, p. 25.
8
Nader Ardalan and Laleh Bakhtiar. TheSenseofl'nity. TbeSufi Tradition in Persian Architecture. Publications
of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, 9, Chicago, London: Uni. of Chicago Press, 1973; Titus Burckhardt,
Art of Islam: Language and Meaning, trans. J. Peter Hobson, London: World of Lslam Pub.. 1976; Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, Islamic Art and Spirituality, Ipswich, England: Golgonooza, 1987.
16
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture." p. 27.
1
Grabar. "Symbols and Signs in Lslamic architecture." p. 28,
18
In this respect he supports and repeats Ettinghausen's earlier argument. Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in
Lslamic architecture," p. 27.
19
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," p. 27.
20
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," p. 27.
21
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture." p. 28.
22
He asks: "How' can these theories be useful even if they do not provide an automatic mcxiel or paradigm?"
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," p. 28.
23
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," pp. 29-30.
24
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture." p. 51,
25
For Grabar the an historical discourse on Islamic an and architecture is profoundly Western. "The Muslim
world did not participate in its development, and this immediately raises the fundamental question whether
any culture can be meaningfully understood through the applications of techniques developed outside it."
Oleg Grabar. "Reflections on the Study of Islamic Art," Muqamas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architec-
ture. 1, New Haven: Yale University Press. 1983. p. 1.
26
With the term 'Islamic' Grabar seems to refer to group of people whose culture has been particularly de-
termined by religion. Grabar. "Symbols and Signs in Lslamic architecture." p. 31.
r
Adrian Sncxigrass and Richard Covne. "Is Designing Hermeneutical?" Architectural Theon Review. 2.1
(April. 1997): p. 76.
 122.

They funher maintain: "'Every' situation has meaning. If things and situations have meanings they do so
within a network of odier meanings." Snodgrass and Coyne, "Is Designing Hermeneutical?" p.89.
29
Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 358.
30
Grabar, "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," p. 28.
31
Grabar, "Symbols and Sigas in Islamic architecture," p, 27.
32
Erwin Panofsky. Gothic Architecture and Scholastic Philosophy. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Interest-
ingly, the starting point of Panofsky's work is a search for meaning in Gothic architecture. His evaluations
and comparisons, however, only dwell on structural similarities between architecture and philosophy.
Because of this Hollier says that, "Panofsky's is a formal analysis" rather than a search for meaning. Denis
Hollier, Against Architecture: The writings of Georges Bataille. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1989, p. 43.
33
Downloaded by [Singapore Polytechnic] at 02:21 04 October 2017

The difficulty of reaching historical data on the representation techniques of Islamic architecture is the
main obstacle which makes one-to-one comparisons with the Western context hard. However, recent
works exhibit interesting historical information and their interpretations reveal some basic differences. For
example Necipoglu cites a comparison from Raphael Du Mans, dated 1660, which highlights the differences
between the representation techniques of Western architects and Safavid architects: "Architects are contrac-
tors who make the plan and drawing of a large edifice. But unlike ours [architects], representing a grand
palace in terms of its ichnography, its orthography, or its perspective, and as if it were already capable of
being inhabited is unknown to them." She also notes, when discussing Ottoman architecture, the absence
of theoretical treatises in the Islamic world comparable to those of Alberti, Filarete, or Palladio. For detailed
information about the history of representation in Islamic architecture, see Giilru Necipoglu Kafadar, "Plans
and Models in 15,h and I6,h Century Ottoman Architectural Practice."yor?;a/ ofthe Society of Architectural
Historians, 45,3, (1986): p. 236.
* Kuban sees the reason of this low symbolic charge definition in the overall comprehensive use of the term
'Islamic architecture.' When a continuity is sought in terms of religious iconography the term Islamic" is
problematic. Dogan Kuban, "Perspectives on Islamic History and Art." in Suha Ozkan (ed), Faith and the
Built Environment: Architecture and Behaviour in Islamic Cultures, Lausenne: Comportements, 1996,
p. 208.
35
Gadamer, Truth and Method, p. 304.
3b
[My Translation from Turkish] Giinkut Akin. Asya Merkezi Mekan Gelenegi (Asia Central Space Tradition].
Ankara: Ministry of Culture Publications, 1990, p. 8.
3
Grabar. "Symbols and Signs in Islamic architecture," p. 31.
38
Gadamer, Truth and Method, pp. 138- 9.