According to the Site of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, the 271st scientific session of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies was held on January 8th, focusing on “The Impact of Art Theories on the Jurisprudence of Art.” In this session, the vital necessity of forming an indigenous and Islamic theory in the field of art as a prerequisite for coherent jurisprudential deduction was emphasized. Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Mohsen Mirmorshadi, the keynote speaker of the session, by explaining the four functional realms of art theory and distinguishing it from the philosophy of art, argued that art theories are situated “along the extension of Shari’a evidences” and without relying on frameworks such as Representation, Formalism, and Expressionism, the precise identification of subjective subjects of art and the issuance of valid jurisprudential rulings—especially in the realm of ethics, the artist’s intention, and the work’s impact—will not be possible. This session was held with the scientific secretaryship of Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Kazem Haghani Fazl and the scientific critique of Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Seyyed Hamid Mirkhandan.
Explanation of the Framework of the Discussion of Art Jurisprudence from the Perspective of the Scientific Secretary
At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Kazem Haghani Fazl, Director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence and the scientific secretary of the session, while congratulating the auspicious days of the month of Rajab and the blessed Eid al-Mab’ath, proceeded to explain the general framework of the discussion.
Referring to the division of jurisprudential subjects into “Objective Subjects” (Mowzu’at-e Ayni) and “Subjective Subjects” (Mowzu’at-e Zehni), he stated: Some subjects, such as contracts which have been established by human rational agents (Oqala), have always been attended to by jurists, and it can be said that artistic subjects are also of this same type; because art is the product of human creativity and arises from the human mind.
Objective and Subjective Subjects; The Challenge of Jurisprudence in Confronting Art
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Haghani Fazl, stating that the recognition of objective subjects—such as the camel in the discussion of blood money (Diyah)—is also not possible without attention to the social context and mental backgrounds, clarified: “This recognition differs in various societies, and the jurist inevitably must pay attention to these differences.”
Emphasizing the greater complexity of subjective and abstract subjects such as art, he noted: Without a theory and analytical framework, presenting a precise analysis of these phenomena is not possible, and thus the necessity of addressing the discussion of “Art Theories” in the Jurisprudence of Art becomes clear.
Art Theory; A Prerequisite for Jurisprudential Analysis of Artistic Subjects
The Director of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence, at the end of his remarks, considered artistic subjects to be constructs of human reason and emphasized: Jurisprudence, without utilizing theories and conceptual frameworks, will not be capable of effectively entering this field.
What is Art Theory and How Does It Differ from Philosophy of Art?
Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Mohsen Mirmorshadi, faculty member and secretary of the Philosophy of Art working group at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, while congratulating the days of Rajab and Eid al-Mab’ath, proceeded to explain his views and considered the subject of art theory an interdisciplinary issue that can seriously cover the field of Art Jurisprudence.
Referring to the lack of attention in the jurisprudential atmosphere to this subject, he clarified: Addressing art theory in jurisprudence is still in its initial stages and requires broader attention and research.
In the introduction of his speech, Dr. Mirmorshadi addressed the history of art theory and, referring to Ancient Greece, said: Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophical discussions related to art have been raised, and part of these discussions has led to the formation of art theories.
Four Fundamental Realms of Art Theory
In defining art theory, he enumerated four fundamental realms for it:
-
Defining the nature, quiddity, and boundaries of art;
-
Explaining the difference between art and non-art and the criterion for being artistic;
-
Determining the criteria for valuing art;
-
Analyzing the function and purpose of art and its role in individual and social life.
According to him, these four realms seek to provide a coherent model to answer fundamental questions in the field of art.
Distinction Between Art Theory and Philosophy of Art
Dr. Mirmorshadi, in explaining the difference between art theory and philosophy of art, said: Philosophy of art is often a collection of scattered dialogues and answers to various questions, but art theory attempts to bring coherence to these discussions by creating a unified axis. He emphasized: The definition of art is the center of gravity of art theory, and a change in the definition of art leads to a difference in artistic theories.
Precedence of Subject over Ruling; The Role of Art Theory in Jurisprudential Deduction
In his belief, no valid jurisprudential deduction takes shape without precise recognition of the subject; because in jurisprudence, the subject precedes the ruling, and the ruling revolves around the subject. Dr. Mirmorshadi, emphasizing the role of art theories in the formation of jurisprudential titles, clarified: “Art theory does not only intervene in the identification of the instance (Misdaq), but constructs the title of the subject, and the jurisprudential ruling finds meaning upon it.”
Art Theories and Different Jurisprudential Consequences
Reviewing the most important art theories from Plato to the contemporary era, including Representation Theory, Formalism, Expressionism, and Institutional Theory, he emphasized the necessity of forming an indigenous and Islamic theory in the field of art and said: “I believe that Islamic art theory can both exist and actually exists; and if we want to have a vibrant and effective Art Jurisprudence, we must take this theory seriously.”
Referring to his research in his doctoral dissertation, he considered the attempt to establish a theory based on Sadrian Transcendent Wisdom (Hikmat-e Muta’aliyah) as an initial step that requires completion and development.
Ethics, Artist’s Intention, and Work’s Impact in Art Jurisprudence
Dr. Mirmorshadi, by explaining the difference between primary and secondary rulings in Art Jurisprudence, stated that sometimes the artistic title of a work causes a change in the Shari’a ruling. According to him, the manner of an artwork’s impact on the audience can change from “frivolity” (Lahv) to “propagation of truth,” and this difference creates a different jurisprudential burden.
He considered one of the most important challenges of Art Jurisprudence to be the relationship between ethics and art, saying: “In the ethics of art, there are three currents: deniers of the relationship between art and ethics, proponents of the complete intervention of ethics, and the moderate view. Accepting a theory that considers art independent of ethics negates many secondary jurisprudential rulings.”
Institutional Theory of Art and Value Challenges
explaining the consequences of the Institutional Theory of Art, he reminded: Accepting this theory, which considers art merely the product of the art institution, can open the field for works completely contrary to moral and religious values. He emphasized: “Art theories are not parallel to Shari’a evidences (Dar Arz-e Adilleh), but are along their extension (Dar Tul) and are in the position of preparation, subject-identification (Mowzu-shenasi), and refinement of meaning (Tanqih-e Ma’na).”
Dr. Mirmorshadi also clarified: “To determine whether a phenomenon is truly an artwork or not, we are compelled to rely on art theory; because this theory defines the boundary between art and non-art.”
Emerging Issues in Art Jurisprudence; From Artist’s Intention to Age Rating
Continuing, he addressed the issue of the artist’s intention and stated: If we consider the artist’s intention effective in the essence of the work, even a work that currently does not cause leading astray (Izlal), if made with the intention of leading astray, can be considered Haram; whereas by considering intention ineffective, the same work might be used in the path of guidance.
At the end of his remarks, referring to the current discussion about films with age ratings, he noted: Such distinctions must be reread from a jurisprudential perspective to clarify whether the limited screening of certain content for the purpose of moral and social awareness-raising is permissible or not.
Critique of Art Theory from the Perspective of Jurisprudence; Separation of Levels of Impact
Continuing the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Seyyed Hamid Mirkhandan, in his detailed critique, emphasized the necessity of precise separation of concepts and levels of the impact of art theory on jurisprudence.
Regarding the relationship between philosophy of art and art theory, he stated: “Art theory should not suffice merely with defining the nature of art; explanation in art theory has a philosophical nature, and thus art theory falls under the philosophy of art.” He added: For complex phenomena like film, micro-theories must be utilized.
Three Jurisprudential Levels of Artwork
Dr. Mirkhandan considered the fundamental condition for Art Jurisprudence being influenced by art theory to be the proof of logical scientific interaction between these fields and clarified: “For jurisprudence to enter the discussion of art, first the ‘being artistic’ of an instance must be established from the perspective of art theory.”
He explained the main arenas of art theory’s entry into jurisprudence at three levels:
-
Production of Artwork: Pertaining to the agent’s intention and the distinction between intention and motivation;
-
Supply of Artwork: Which, with the emergence of mass media, has separated from production and encompasses jurisprudential governance issues;
-
Consumption of Artwork: Which is the main locus of discussion regarding impact on the audience.
He warned that accepting the “Death of the Author” theory could deprive jurisprudence of the necessary theoretical backing in analyzing the artist’s intention.
Questions and Concerns Raised in the Session
In the final part of the session, attendees raised their questions and ambiguities. The main axis of these questions was how art theories influence the foundations of Art Jurisprudence and the relationship of these theories with existing jurisprudential foundations. These dialogues emphasized the importance of continuing theoretical and interdisciplinary research in the field of Art Jurisprudence.
Session Summary
The 271st scientific session of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence demonstrated that art theories are the foundation and basis for recognizing subjects of Art Jurisprudence, and without them, precise understanding of the Shari’a ruling in the field of art is not possible. Dr. Mirmorshadi emphasized that art theory plays a role not only in identifying the instance but in shaping the title of the jurisprudential subject, and to create a living and effective jurisprudence, an indigenous and Islamic theory must be formed in the philosophy of art. Dr. Mirkhandan also emphasized the necessity of logical and scientific interaction between philosophy and jurisprudence and the separation of levels of production, supply, and consumption of artwork so that the impact of art theories on jurisprudence is realized precisely and practically.
This session clarified that addressing art theory and its relationship with jurisprudence is a necessary step in completing jurisprudential deductions of artistic and moral phenomena, and its vacuum has so far prevented the formation of a coherent Art Jurisprudence.