Illustration: Turkish Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.
Owen Jones, in his book The Grammar of Ornament published in 1856, saw Turkish styles in decoration and ornament as being highly derivative. He felt the style particularly that seen in Istanbul, was a mixture of the earlier style of Byzantium and that of the Islamic decorative work of the Arabian Peninsula.
Jones personally felt that much of the architectural decorative work found in Istanbul had been produced by artisans from across, and even beyond the Turkish Empire. He saw the result of this, not as a fusion of styles, but as a mismatch of different indigenous and pan-cultural styles that seemed to lead, at least in Jones estimation, to a situation where numerous styles could often be incorporated within the same building.
It seems clear that Jones was not so much disparaging of Turkish decoration and ornamentation in general, but of that of mid-nineteenth century Istanbul specifically. The capital of the Turkish Empire, like many other European capitals of the time, was busy redesigning, redecorating and reimagining itself in order to fit the mould and template of modernity as seen by European Victorians.
Jones had more praise for the artists and craftspeople of Asia Minor, rather than that of an international city like Istanbul. He made particular reference to that of Turkish carpet design, and although he saw the skills used as being less than that of Persian carpet makers for example, he was still particular in naming these craftspeople as being superior in many ways to the artisans of Istanbul.
It must be remembered that Jones book was published in 1856 and while, as far as the map was concerned, the Turkish Empire still covered a vast geographical and political area including much of south eastern Europe, it was often seen by the British as either a corrupt and crumbling empire that stood in the way of the British and their own empire, or a convenient buffer to Russian expansionist plans. Either way a prejudiced outlook towards the Turkish Empire was unavoidable and Jones would have not been immune to this narrow perspective of Turkey, even though he often tried to be unaffected by British imperial and cultural snobbery. It was often hard in mid-nineteenth century imperial Europe, as it is today, not to be affected even in a small way by national and cultural stereotypes.
However, Jones did leave some praise for Turkish decoration and ornament. The final illustration shown in this article is the same final plate shown in Jones chapter and was the one that he felt most clearly followed the earlier and purer Islamic decorative style that he so admired.
Illustration: Turkish Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.
Although the chapter on Turkish Ornament was a small, and in some ways throwaway one, sandwiched as it was between the two large chapters on Arabian and Moresque Ornament in which Jones waxed lyrical about the purity and innovation of style, we should not take Jones and his dismissiveness too literally. Jones was a great first person observer. He travelled extensively and was intimately involved in the Great Exhibition of 1851. These were often the first hand references that he used as his guides towards the critique of cultural and national ornamental styles. As already stated, he was not a fan of the modern European architectural and imperial style, which usually closely followed the static and, as he saw it, culturally divorced classical mould. He gave the distinct impression that he had found this particular European style being used extensively as a construction template throughout contemporary Istanbul, at the expense of the natural historical and cultural style of the city, in other words it was a decorative style with only transitory fashion at its root.
As far as the Great Exhibition was concerned, many nations represented themselves as they wished to be perceived. This usually meant that important cultural traditions were either set aside, or were used within a modern industrial framework, both were seen to fail dismally and the Great Exhibition, though a financial and public success, was largely a design and decoration failure.
These two factors along with the general European prejudice against both Turkey and its empire, coloured Jones perception of the quality of the decorative and ornamental work that Turkey had to offer. Today we would probably see the Turkish illustrations shown here in an altogether different light and would probably disagree with Jones perceptions and conclusions. Apart from the continuing general European prejudices concerning Turkey, many of the factors colouring Jones view of Turkish ornament have faded away, leaving us with an exceptional Turkish national cultural style of decoration and ornamentation that is admired as a positive addition to that of world decorative art.
Illustration: Turkish Ornament from Owen Jones The Grammar of Ornament, 1856.
Islamic Decoration and Ornament as seen by Owen Jones
The Grammar of Ornament: All 100 Color Plates from the Folio Edition of the Great Victorian Sourcebook of Historic Design (Dover Pictorial Archive Series)
The Grammar of Ornament. Folio Edition
Grammar of Ornament: A Monumental Work of Art
The Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts: Thirteen Centuries of Glory
Turkish Traditional Art Today (Indiana University Turkish Studies)
Turkish Art and Architecture: From the Seljuks to the Ottomans
Authentic Turkish Designs (Dover Design Library)
Art of Turkish Weaving: Designs Through the Ages
Turkish Art and Architecture
Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts
Turkish handicrafts (Art book series)
Architecture (Traditional Turkish Arts)
The Evolution of Turkish Art and Architecture
Calligraphy (Traditional Turkish Arts)
From Mind, Heart, and Hand: Persian, Turkish, and Indian Drawings from the Stuart Cary Welch Collection
The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey (Comparative Studies on Muslim Societies)
