In \u00a0“My Name is Red,” ideas and concepts are presented to miniaturists that one might assume are impossible to portray in picture form. One\u00a0instance, in Chapter 24 (“I am Death”), a tall, mysterious old man tells\u00a0a miniaturist, “Now then, draw Death for me”. The miniaturist responds, “I cannot draw a picture of Death without ever, not once in my entire life, having seen a picture of Death”. The wise old man argues back, “You do not always need to have seen an illustration of something in order to depict\u00a0that thing” (Pamuk 125).<\/p>\n
The old man’s\u00a0response brought me back to my childhood when I would read picture books every night before bed. The books\u00a0were typically educational, and sought to teach me (and any other children reading them) about life values or concepts. For instance, showing gratitude. How does one depict a lofty idea like gratitude?<\/p>\n
Our\u00a0study of images thus far in the course has made me reevaluate my question. In illuminated manuscripts like the Tr\u00e8s Riches Heures, ideas and concepts are portrayed all the time. Patrons want to be seen as kind, and want their servants to be depicted as happy. Therefore, one\u00a0must depict what\u00a0they feel about happiness or kindness, portray what comes to mind, and make the viewer feel it too. It is personal interpretation that sparks audience interpretation. Is this always effective? Do we always succeed? Likely not, but it is the attempt to do so that gets any artist one step closer to reaching his\/her viewers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In \u00a0“My Name is Red,” ideas and concepts are presented to miniaturists that one might assume are impossible to portray in picture form. One\u00a0instance, in Chapter 24 (“I am Death”), a tall, mysterious old man tells\u00a0a miniaturist, “Now then, draw Death for me”. The miniaturist responds, “I cannot draw a picture of Death without ever, … <\/p>\n