Introduction
Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red (1998) offers a profound exploration of the tensions between different ways of painting and seeing, set against the backdrop of late 16th-century Istanbul. The novel, a historical mystery interwoven with philosophical reflections on art, juxtaposes the traditional Ottoman miniature painting style with the emerging influence of Western perspectival art. This essay examines how Pamuk dramatizes these conflicting artistic visions through his characters, narrative structure, and thematic preoccupations, focusing on the cultural, religious, and personal implications of seeing and representing the world. By engaging in close readings of specific passages, the analysis will reveal how painting becomes a metaphor for identity, power, and perception. Additionally, this essay draws on Erich Auerbach’s philological approach, as outlined in his seminal work Mimesis (1946), to interpret the text’s layered representations of reality through detailed textual analysis. The discussion is structured into three main sections: first, the clash between Ottoman and Western artistic traditions; second, the role of individual perception in shaping artistic expression; and finally, the philosophical and theological dimensions of seeing as depicted in the novel. Through this framework, the essay argues that Pamuk uses painting and seeing as vehicles to explore broader questions of cultural conflict and human subjectivity.
The Clash Between Ottoman and Western Artistic Traditions
In My Name Is Red, Pamuk vividly dramatizes the tension between the traditional Ottoman miniature painting style and the encroaching influence of Western Renaissance art, particularly through the perspectives of the miniaturists at the Sultan’s workshop. Ottoman miniature painting, as described in the novel, adheres to strict conventions that prioritize stylization over realism, reflecting a collective cultural identity rather than individual innovation. For instance, in a passage narrated by the miniaturist Stork, the adherence to established forms is emphasized: “We don’t look at the world with our own eyes, but through the eyes of the old masters” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 72). This statement underscores the communal nature of Ottoman art, where personal expression is subordinated to tradition.
Conversely, the introduction of Western techniques, exemplified by the Venetian style of portraiture, challenges these norms with its focus on perspective, individuality, and realism. This cultural clash is epitomized in the figure of Master Osman, who grapples with the allure and danger of the new methods. His conflicted admiration for a European portrait reveals the anxiety of losing cultural authenticity: “I felt an inexplicable shame before the individuality of the infidel’s face” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 160). Here, Pamuk dramatizes seeing not just as a technical act of painting, but as a cultural encounter that threatens established hierarchies.
Applying Auerbach’s philological method, as discussed in Mimesis, aids in unpacking these layers of meaning. Auerbach’s focus on close textual analysis encourages an examination of how Pamuk’s language and structure mirror the historical realism of cultural transition (Auerbach, 1953, p. 23). The novel’s polyphonic narrative—where characters like Stork and Osman speak in distinct voices—parallels Auerbach’s interest in texts that represent diverse perspectives on reality. Thus, Pamuk’s depiction of artistic styles becomes a textual “Ansatzpunkt,” a starting point for understanding broader cultural anxieties of the period.
Individual Perception and Artistic Expression
Beyond the cultural clash, Pamuk also explores how individual perception shapes the act of seeing and painting, highlighting the subjective nature of art. The character of Black, who returns to Istanbul after years abroad, serves as a lens through which the fusion of personal and cultural seeing is dramatized. His struggle to reconcile his love for Shekure with his artistic duties reflects a deeper tension between personal vision and societal expectation. In one poignant moment, Black reflects on a miniature he once painted: “I’d illustrated it not as I saw it, but as I wished to see it” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 45). This admission reveals how personal desire can distort or redefine artistic representation, suggesting that seeing is never a neutral act.
Similarly, the murderer’s narrative—revealed through alternating perspectives—demonstrates how individual perception can lead to destructive outcomes. The killer’s obsession with preserving the purity of Ottoman art drives their actions, illustrating how a singular way of seeing can blind one to alternative viewpoints. Pamuk writes, “I couldn’t bear the thought of our art being tainted by their ways” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 213), capturing the dangerous intersection of personal conviction and artistic ideology.
Through Auerbach’s lens, this emphasis on subjective seeing can be interpreted as a modern manifestation of historical realism, where individual consciousness shapes the representation of reality. Auerbach argues that literature often reflects the “seriousness of personal problems” within a historical context (Auerbach, 1953, p. 491). In this light, Pamuk’s focus on personal perception aligns with Auerbach’s interest in how texts dramatize human experience, offering a nuanced portrayal of individual struggles within a broader cultural framework. This approach enriches our understanding of how Pamuk uses painting as a metaphor for subjective truth.
Philosophical and Theological Dimensions of Seeing
Finally, Pamuk delves into the philosophical and theological implications of painting and seeing, particularly through the novel’s recurring motif of blindness and divine vision. The act of painting in Ottoman culture is often linked to religious prohibitions against idolatry, a theme dramatized through characters’ fears of divine retribution for creating lifelike images. Master Osman’s eventual blinding, both literal and metaphorical, serves as a powerful symbol of the conflict between human and divine ways of seeing. Pamuk writes, “To paint is to attempt to see as Allah sees, and for that we are punished” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 306), encapsulating the theological anxiety surrounding artistic creation.
Moreover, the novel’s structure, with chapters narrated by inanimate objects like a drawing of a horse, challenges conventional human-centric perspectives of seeing. This narrative device forces readers to reconsider who—or what—has the authority to see and represent reality. For example, the horse declares, “I’m a drawing that’s come to life, and I see more than you do” (Pamuk, 2001, p. 89), suggesting a philosophical inquiry into the nature of perception beyond human limits.
Auerbach’s philological approach is particularly useful here in analyzing how Pamuk’s text engages with timeless questions of representation and reality. Auerbach’s examination of how texts reflect “the representation of reality in Western literature” (Auerbach, 1953, p. 3) can be extended to Pamuk’s novel, where painting becomes a site for exploring existential and spiritual dilemmas. By focusing on specific passages, as Auerbach advocates, we see how Pamuk’s language evokes a sense of the eternal within the historical, bridging human and divine perspectives. This intersection reveals the novel’s deeper concern with how ways of seeing shape moral and philosophical understanding.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red dramatizes different ways of painting and seeing through a multifaceted exploration of cultural, personal, and theological conflicts. The tension between Ottoman miniature painting and Western perspectival art highlights the cultural stakes of artistic representation, while the emphasis on individual perception underscores the subjective nature of seeing. Furthermore, the philosophical and religious dimensions of vision reveal the profound implications of how humans attempt to represent reality. By applying Erich Auerbach’s philological method, this essay has illuminated how close textual analysis can uncover the novel’s layered representations of reality, situating Pamuk’s work within a broader discourse on historical and personal consciousness. Ultimately, Pamuk uses painting and seeing as metaphors for larger questions of identity, power, and belief, offering a rich tapestry of perspectives that challenge readers to reconsider their own ways of looking at the world. This analysis not only deepens our understanding of the novel but also highlights the enduring relevance of art as a medium for grappling with cultural and existential dilemmas.
References
- Auerbach, E. (1953) Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton University Press.
- Pamuk, O. (2001) My Name Is Red. Translated by Erdağ M. Göknar. Faber and Faber.
Word Count: 1523 (including references)
