One thing I experimented with during the workshop was how true to life I wanted to make my images look. When I was drawing parts of maps for the background of my “J,” I thought, well I could make these look as accurate as possible and have what I want to communicate (i.e. the map locations) strictly laid out. Or, I can try to evoke images of maps in general, of the world, or of traveling — basically, leave it up to the viewer to decide. This dilemma reminded me of the contrast between Western and Eastern manuscript traditions. The Western style represents people and scenery recognizably. Once we studied a few manuscripts, like the Très Riches Heures, I realized, yeah, it’s relatively clear what people are doing, what season it is, and that the Duc de Berry is proud of all his castles. For other illuminations, I feel like the symbols, especially the flowers, have a pretty one-to-one relationship in that each is used specifically to show a certain trait or virtue.
Meanwhile, the Eastern style is more abstract because the concept, meaning, or scene is supposed to be in one’s mind already; one doesn’t need a visual representation of it. It’s almost as if the artist trusts that the viewer will interpret the illumination in an appropriately religious and spiritual way (this is not to say that Western artists don’t trust the viewer). This speculation made me better understand the importance and influence of audience when making art. Do I trust viewers to interpret it in a way that I want them to? Do I even want my viewers to share my specific interpretation in the first place? These questions can also apply to how Pamuk presents the tensions between Eastern and Western styles in My Name is Red. I feel like Pamuk walks a fine line between explaining the pros and cons of each style, thus leaving it up to the reader to form an opinion, while showing acceptance of the Western style, or at the very least the mixing of both, thus nudging the reader towards a certain direction as well.
