cold weapons and Orientalism

[kronckew]

Popular paintings were often copied by the original painter, frequently by their students or employees assigned to such tasks so more people could own a copy. They were frequently signed by the original artist as a stamp of approval, and often contained slight variations. As You note Rembrandt, he was a one who did this. They had quite a production line I've read. A renaissance version of the photo-copy.

[ariel]

On top of that, oils were not painted "on the spot".
Painters made more or less detailed sketches with the live models, but painted the final drafts in their studios in Europe. It would be virtually impossible to convince some Nubian guard to pose immobile for several hours day after day, to account for the changes in daylight etc. In their studios they had collections of oriental things, including weapons, and just selected the flashiest examples from the hoard.
Thus, the weapons in the finished painting had nothing to do with the real stuff. By the same token, the dresses, their colors etc were painted according to the painters' artistic whims.

And I am not even talking about orientalist painters being allowed to visit harems and see naked wives of local honchos dancing or taking a bath:-)

[Jim McDougall]

This is an excellent and well posed question!
I very much agree with the previous entries, and 'orientalism' was a romantic fascination with exotica popular in art and literature. As noted, Rembrandt had quite a collection of arms and armor and used modern (of the time) weapons such as keris in his 'Biblical works to add to artistic effect and drama.

As also noted, various weapons, costume and figures were drawn in 'studies' where they were later compiled collectively in a finished work. It is well known that items, features, even characters were taken from other extant works to include in the artists portrayal. I have seen numbers of cases where works were shown in comparison to other works the elements have been taken from.

In the Ottoman situation, it is tempting to note the remarkable diversity of their forces and to consider that a subject figure might have weapons from the many sources of arms coming together in such context. While possible, it was not necessarily the case, nor certainly the norm, so it is more likely the items portrayed here are essentially 'license' in my opinion.

[Philip]

These Orientalist paintings are wonderful, artists like Schreier and Gérôme could really evoke a romantic mood of an idealized East, almost wish you could be there despite the sandstorms, broiling heat, and occasionally being kicked by an irate camel.

But for reasons already cited, this art is NOT a reliable ethnographic reference source! Any more than we can rely on Hollywood to depict history anywhere near what it actually was, or would have been.

Photos are a more certain bet, but not necessarily so. Some photographers set up their shots with local models appropriately tarted up and equipped. You have to look carefully at the details. And it's best to delve into the historical backstory of the place and era, and have a certain familiarity with other aspects of the material culture of that particular civilization -- that way if you find anomalies, you can apply a bit of analysis and decide for yourself.

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Philip

...

Photos are a more certain bet, but not necessarily so. Some photographers set up their shots with local models appropriately tarted up and equipped. ...

Yup, American Civil War personal photos were usually taken by photographers that would tart them up by adding a firearm for them to hold or a knife to stick thru their belt in an inappropriate place "for the photo", which was from his own props and not selected for accuracy. Some posed photos by travellers have the same look "Could you move that knife a bit more to the right please, I can't see it too good in the viewfinder".

[Philip]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Yup, American Civil War personal photos were usually taken by photographers that would tart them up by adding a firearm for them to hold or a knife to stick thru their belt in an inappropriate place "for the photo", which was from his own props and not selected for accuracy. Some posed photos by travellers have the same look "Could you move that knife a bit more to the right please, I can't see it too good in the viewfinder".

Yes indeed, I had overlooked Civil War America when writing my post. But how true! Photography was the hot new thing at the time, of course, and we know that human creativity has few bounds.

Years of looking for and at period photos of the Far East and the Subcontinent, I've become attuned to spotting the pinned-up bedsheet backdrops, ill-fitting bits of clothing, awkward poses of men who look like they spent their careers pushing brooms rather than wielding swords, their bodies draped with an assemblage of bazaar-grade armor and armament that would seriously hamper their movement in a duel or in battle. Ethnographic comic relief, I call it.

[ariel]

Nothing better exemplifies the falsity of the "orientalist" presentation of the reality than the actual photographs. Here are couple of Orientalist pictures of the odalisques in a local harem and the photographs of the harem made personally by shah Nasser-el Din Qajjar.