Final Paper: Culture Clash and Depersonalization of Style in Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red

Abstract

            This essay will cover an analysis about the theory of depersonalization presented in the novel. I’m going to use Eliot’s theory of depersonalization in art to explain the issue regarding culture clash between the West and the East which then lead to the clash of the miniaturists who are currently working on a secret book commissioned by the Sultan using the new style called Frankish style. One side refused to use the new western style for they want to keep the tradition and avoid blasphemy. The other side tempted to selectively absorb some value from western style that is called Frankish or Venetian style. However, Eliot argued that as one cannot escape from the past everytime he creates art in the present, one has to appreciate the tradition and his predecessor whose influence will always appear in his art. Depersonalization means the creator of art understands his tradition and also aware of the past.

 

Introduction

My Name Is Red was written in a quite complicated way. This book has more than one narrator and all the narrators use first person point of view. Each of them tell different stories according to their own condition and no narrators interfere another narrators’ story, this somehow helps the readers to understand the story from different perspectives. The narrators are not only humans, though. Pamuk gives voices to inanimate objects such as tree, gold coin, two dervishes, and corpse. He also lets animal such as dog and horse to speak in first person point of view. Moreover, what’s more interesting is he gives satan, death and the color red voices, all of them use first person ‘I’. The book begins with ‘I Am A Corpse’, the corpse itself is the body of Elegant Effendi who got murdered by his fellow miniaturist. The narrative keeps the suspense as we try to guess who the murderer is. Elegant got killed for his accusation towards his fellow miniaturust who draw a picture of horse of his own imagination. He was going to tell someone that they got some secret project that eventually will endanger the whole society of miniaturist thus he got murdered. The end of the first chapter gives clue about the situation of why he is murdered.

“My death conceals an appalling conspiracy against our religion, our traditions and the way we see the world.” (p.6)

The story is not only about a murder case and, it also tells about a complicated love story between Shekure and Black Effendi. However, I am just going to focus on my main point to show the culture clash which triggered the conflict between the miniaturists and the relation between one’s style and tradition.

Culture Clash between the East and the West.

            Culture clash is apparantly the cause of the conflict in the story. It begins with Sultan’s commission to make an illustated book with a potrait of him using Frankish style. Frankish style itself is entirely different with the one the miniaturists usually used. The illustrated book commissioned by the Sultan was supposed to use Frankish style. Elegant Effendi was strictly opposed to the idea. Even Enisthe himself was still unsure with his decision to follow Sultan’s order.

“Attempting to imitate the world directly through painting seems dishonorable to me....But there is an undeniable allure to the paintings they made by the new methods. They depict what the eye sees just as the eye sees it...one come to realize that the only way to have one’s face immortalized is through the Frankish style.” (p.206)

The Western style paints something according to what they see with their own eyes, like, for example, they will paint a tree as similar as possible to the image of the tree that they see with their eyes, which means they indirectly have an ability to ‘make’ a tree like their God makes it, thus they are trying to compete with God. Meanwhile, the Eastern style miniaturists choose to paint the tree according to what they know about the image of the tree. They depend more on their memories rather than their eyes.

           

“To know is to remember that you’ve seen. to see is to know without remembering.” (p.92)

To relate art with religion or another thing is to ignore the fact that art stands by itself. Nothing defines art. Thus relating art with something like religion means we give art limitation. The idea of Art for Art’s Sake means art don’t have anything to do with any other things but art. Art will not stay the same for its medium is unlimited, thus there definitely will be some kind of change in its form as the art itself develops.

“Form is not tradition. It alters from generation to generation. Artist always seek a new technique, and will continue to do so as long as their work excites them.” (Forster in Art for Art’s Sake, p.27)

Turkish miniaturists were very resistance towards any kind of new styles for they want to cling to their tradition. However, Wilde have another point of view about this matter in the Decay of Lying. He stated that lying in art, as in being creative in art, is important as one won’t ever know the beauty of art if one hadn’t lied. And once the act of lying stops, that means there is no more creativity in art.

“It is simply one example out of man; and if something cannot be done to check, or at least to modify, our monstrous worship of facts, Art will become sterille and Beauty will pass away from the land.” (Wilde, on The Decay of Lying, p.3 )

Wilde points out the importance of lying in art as it is the form of creativity in art. Lying means you try to modify something into something new. You beautify it. Doesn’t that what lying is for? To make something look better than it is supposed to be? Master Osman, one of the great masters in the story didn’t accept the idea of beautifying art by modifying it. This is somehow related to the fact that leaving the tradition behind means you didn’t appreciate your predecessors and you perform an act of blasphemy toward your religion.

            However, one of the miniaturists, Butterfly, have different thoughts toward this cultural clash between the East and the West. He said, “An artist should never succumb to hubris of any kind, he should simply paint the way he sees fit rather than troubling over East or West.", which is true, as God have stated in the Koran, “To God, belongs the East and the West.”

Depersonalization of Style

            The Turkish style really opposed to the idea of having a different style. Sure, one’s works might be better than the other ones as some people are more talented than the rest, but to have a signature style is considered as having flaws. There was a story of the son of a Sultan in this book. He was a great painter that people sometimes misrecognized his works as the works of a Great Master, so the Sultan’s young wife, who apparantly was the inspiration of his paintings, tried to convince the Sultan to let his son put his signature in his work to which Sultan replied, “If my Son signs his paintings, won’t he be unjustly taking credits for the technique and styles of the old masters, which he has imitated? Moreover, if he signs his work, won’t he be saying ‘my paintings bear my imperfections’?”

            If he said that putting a signature means they show their imperfection, doesn’t that mean they are anxious of being critized? Eliot said that Criticism is as inevitable as breathing. Actually the art itself, whether it’s poem, poetry, painting, or novel, is made to be critized. So I think putting a sign in your paintings or name in your novels doesn’t have anything to do with imperfection, because of course, our works will always be imperfect.

            Meanwhile, as I have mentioned earlier at the beginning of my essay, Turkish miniaturists were very loyal in carrying their tradition. They respect their predecessors a lot that putting a signature would be mean they ‘steal’ the credits. Eliot states in his Tradition and Individual Talent that, “what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceeded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new work of art among them.”

            Apparantly, the material of art never really changes, it is just the way it is delivered that is different, depends on the ‘trend’ that is happening at that time. It is quite different with the Turkish miniaturist, they don’t stand for the idea of ‘the renewal of art’, they stand for the idea that they create their art based on their memories. Thus, they will not have renewal in their styles.

           

“Where there is true art and genuine virtuosity the artist can paint an incomparable masterpiece without leaving even a trace of his identity.” (p.22)

When an artist produces an art, that means he fully surrendered himself to his work. For example, when we write an essay, we sometimes are not conscious of what we wrote, we just let our fingers type and then 5 pages are done. The similar thing, but not quite, happen to the Turkish artists. They are used to the idea of ‘just paint what’s on your memory’ because they never make something they really want to make. They fully devoted themselves to their works but they are never able to express their desire in painting. They never personally create their signature style for that means they will give their work an ‘identity’, and by giving a work an identity, that means they take credits of what they have learned drom their predecessor.

“What happens is a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.” (Eliot: 1982)

By depersonalizing himself in his work, that means he is sacrificing his own identity as an artist because he can’t apply his own style to his work for the sake of his devotion to the tradition.

Conclusion

            The culture clash of this story is triggered by the resistance of new style performed by the Turkish miniaturists. However, their art has limitation, whereas in art, there shoud be no limitation. Art should never be related to anything, let alone religion which is always full of limitation. Also, their self-depersonalization is actually their way to keep their tradition run and exist. For if they started ‘showing’ their true selves, then they will modify theor style and when their style is modified, that means they stopped doing their tradition.

Works Cited:

Elliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent” Vol. 19, pp. 36-42, Perspecta. United States: Yale School of Architecture, 1982.

Pamuk, Orhan. “My Name Is Red”. Trans. Erdag Goknar. United States: Random House, Inc, 2002.

Wilde, Oscar. “The Decay of Lying.” Intentions. New York: Brentano, 1905.

Forster, E. M. “Art for Art’s Sake”