مطالعه تطبیقی سفال کوباچه ایران (صفویه) و سفال ایزنیک ترکیه (عثمانی) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
شباهت سفالینه های کوباچه تبریز دوره صفویه با سفالینه ایزنیک ترکیه در دوره عثمانی این سؤال را پدید می آورد که علل تشابه این دو گونه سفالینه چه بوده و کدام یک بر دیگری تأثیر گذاشته است؟ شیوه ساخت این ظروف، تزئینات ظروف سفالی ایران و ایزنیک و رنگ های مشترک، حکایت از تأثیر متقابل آنها در دوره های زمانی خاص دارد. هدف تحقیق، شناسایی نمونه های مشابه در ایران و ترکیه و بررسی علل احتمالی تأثیر پذیری این دو گونه سفالینه از یکدیگر است. ظروف کوباچه که با نقوش ختایی و رنگ های متنوع تزئین شده ، در ایزنیک ترکیه نیز با اشتراکاتی در طرح و رنگ دیده می شود. این مقاله، ابتدا به معرفی دو گونه سفال کوباچه و ایزنیک پرداخته است. سپس با بررسی روابط و مراودات فرهنگی و سیاسی دو کشور، به عوامل احتمالی تأثیر گذار سفال کوباچه بر سفال ایزنیک و تبیین اشتراکات در تزئین و رنگ پرداخته است. یافته های تحقیق نشان داد مهاجرت عده ای از هنرمندان تبریزی به ترکیه و پس از آن، حمله عثمانی ها در چالدران و سپس، دستیابی آنها به خزانه دولت صفوی در تبریز و به غنیمت بردن آثار هنری و هنرمندان آن منطقه به پایتخت عثمانی، باعث تأثیرپذیری سفالینه های ایزنیک از سفال کوباچه شده است.The comparative study of Iran’s Kubachi Earthenware (Safavid Period) and Turkey’s Iznik Earthenware (Ottoman Period)
The similarity between Kubachi earthenware in the Safavid period and Turkey’s Iznik pottery in Ottoman period has raised these questions: 1) was the Iznik earthenware influenced by the Kubache earthenware? 2) As regards motif and color, what similarities are seen between the Turkey’s Iznik earthenware and the Iran’s kubache earthenware? Iran in the Safavid period was appreciated often by kings in terms of art. Pottery art in this period gained much prosperity and the diverse earthenware came into existence, including gilt earthenware, haft-rang, blue and white, seladon, gambron and Kubache. Safavid earthenware (16th century) in Iran has different kinds. Kubachi earthenware is a type of Safavid earthenware in 16th century; it was mostly found in Kubachi of the regions of Azerbayjan and Tabriz. This earthenware was often decorated by Khatay motifs and variety of colors. The earthenware like those found in Kubachi is also found in Turkey’s Iznik which has large conformity in terms of design and color, so it seems they effectively influenced each other. The current research aims to investigate the similar samples in Iran and Turkey. It seems that the Iznik earthenware, through the dependency of Ottoman on Iran and also seizing the Safavid government treasury in Tabriz and plundering most of valuable artworks as well as travel of numerous artists of that region to Turkey (Ottoman capital) is influenced by the Kubache earthenware. Witnesses show that the Iznik earthenware through the attach of Ottoman to Iran and seizing the Safavid government treasury in Tabriz and plundering most of the valuable artworks and the transmission of the numerous artists of that region to Turkey takes effect from the Kubachi earthenware.Aside from the difference in the type of Kubachi free designing and Iznik symmetric patterning, the way to make those potteries, outline decorations and border of potteries of Iran and Iznik, their joint colors indicate their mutual impact in specific period of time. This article, first of all, introduces two kinds of earthenware, Kubachi and Iznik, and then investigates the relations and parameters that give rise to effect of the Kubachi earthenware on Iznik. The current article uses the researches conducted on this subject by such researchers as: Barbara Brand in his work Islamic art (2004), Wilson Allan in Islamic Ceramics (2000), Tamara Talbot Rice ancient arts of central Asia(1993), Leyla Rafiey Iranian earthenware(1998), Seyfollah Kambakhsh Fard the earthenware in Iran(2010), and Firozeh Mahjour in her article Iran, the origin of earthenware called Kubache(2009). Also, in English resources, some works can be named about Islamic art, Islamic pottery and the books that specifically were written about the Iznik earthenware like Emmanuel Cooper (1998), Oliver Watson (2004), and John Carswell(2003). In spite of these resources up to now it has been not conducted a comprehensive study on the comparison between these two kinds of earthenware. Up to now it has been not conducted a comprehensive study on the comparison between these two kinds of earthenware.
تبلیغات
