Sorry for the autistic subject title.
I have heard that art and architecture in the Eastern Roman Empire somewhat stagnated, turning into
>Maybe a dome
And that when the Ottomans came and conquered it, combined with their own, Persian, and Moorish designers, engineers and architects, really breathed in new life in respect to the architectural scene in what is now known as Istanbul.
Any info on this?
namefagging for duration of the thread for practical purposes
Now I don;t know much about the ins and outs of Islam, but I noticed a decrease in quality, focus on aesthetics, and workmanship in their designs since 1700.
Shooting out some speculations here, feel free to shoot down which is wrong
As Islam was relatively new, it still has novel peoples, lands, and styles to conquer and incorporate as their own, from Persia, to North Africa, to Asia Minor to the Iberian. As lifestyles and interested were increasingly directed by edicts at the top, variation and innovation soon died.
In Islam, iirc, art for the sake of art is shunned as it detracts from the glory of Allah, but in olden days people had less issue with using art to shine a light (in the dark tunnel that is the mortal world) toward Allah, as a form of worship to him, knowing that it pales in comparison to his magnificence but it's the best the people of the day can amount to.
That's not to say Islam wasn't always violent in some fashion, but it was a different degree than the stagnation of exprssion assumed by Wahabis- who are relatively new on the scene- or to a lesser degree in the Shiite sphere, (after the Iranian Revolution).
It may be also to due with the increasing depth, scope, and importance placed on interpretative works such as the hadith. Islam went from consulting religious texts as they pertained to theological matters, to turning everything into a theological matter which in turn needed a religious text to interpret how to interact with it in accordance to the Qu Ran. (A similar thing happened with Orthodox Jews and the Talmud.)
Lastly, in terms of enforcement, I don't think the Muslim rulers of wayback were as intolerant of different religions, new ideas, interpretations, and straying from the consensus interpretation as they are today.
I can't exactly go to the KSA today and start painting colorful murals, build modernist buildings, and go half-naked.
Much like how classical sculpture was funded through long-term patronage of the rich elite, and popes and rulers could commission great buildings and works of art through a very controlled means of gaining revenue on one end, and a geyser of spending for pet projects on the other, that wouldn't fly today, as people would riot against their religious and political leaders for doing so, people would prefer mass produced items and components
So to did Muslim nations entering the modern world embrace utilitarianism, keep a more niggardly eye on the flow of funds inside their religious and state institutions, and simply don't have the interest time and money for such patronage.
One can dream though.
Is it possible that Byzantines Iconoclastic movements could have influenced the Empire's architecture?
Given how purposely simple and boring any Iconoclastic churches looked (see pic related) is it not possible that some of the aesthetic qualities of the religion ended up staying in popular Byzantine architecture?
I'd say absolutely. IIRC there was a good article I had about the evolution of iconoclastic churches to modern ones, and how they had to follow some specific shape and pattern, which later became common motifs in the Byzantine landscape.
At first glance at the thumbnail I thought that was a rendering of a Roman church or public building. With the Umayyad's reputation for 'decadence' I shouldn't be so surprised, but perhaps it has something to do with aping the Romans as part of the empire building project.
Either that or I spot 'Roman' things far too easily...
It does carry many more of the traits than most other Muslim structures.
In fact it originally served as a temple for Jupiter, than a Cathedral, and even after conquest it was far later when recognizable minarets were constructed.
I would like to see some step-by-step changes to the Umayyad Mosque but am still looking.
I still hope someone here could provide more info on the transition from Late Roman art and architecture to the absorbed styles of the Islamic world.
Also it's quite a shame- there was a time where Muslims would build upon Pagans and other Kufar, rather than tear them down wholesale.
Interesting, I had no idea about its backstory. The Roman feeling makes a lot more sense now.
With the transition most of the most important changes would have taken place in the 700s and 800s, up until then the majority of people under muslim rule got on with business pretty much as usual. Unless you were a Zoroastrian/polytheist, obviously. But this might make the transition itself hard to spot or pinpoint, with it being such a slow, drawn-out process.