View the h-museum Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-museum's July 2008 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-museum's July 2008 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-museum home page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORIENTALISM REVISITED : ART AND THE POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION A Symposium at Tate Britain Friday 13 June 2008, 10.00–18.00 Reviewed for H-Museum by Prof. Dr. Antoine Capet, University of Rouen E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org As we pointed out in a previous review,(1) it is now _de rigueur_ to organise conferences and study days in connection with major Exhibitions, and the Tate management very competently mounted an international symposium to complement its excellent _The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting_ Exhibition, which opened the week before. After a general presentation by Paul Goodwin (Cross Cultural Curator, Tate Britain), the first session, on "Orientalism and Art Histories", was introduced by its Chair, Christine Riding (Curator, 18th and 19th Century British Art, Tate Britain, and co-curator of the Exhibition). The first speaker was Professor Mary Roberts (John Schaeffer Associate Professor of British Art, University of Sydney), who discussed portraits "At the Margins of British Orientalism". Starting from the example of David Wilkie, Professor Roberts suggested that the genre allowed a range of aesthetic forms, including photographic parodies and "Ottoman Orientalism". If one speaks of an "indigenous engagement with Orientalism", one may suggest the addition of Middle East participants to the logic of European Orientalism. The cross-cultural boundaries are renegotiated by the arts – in this instance portraits – with an interplay between self and other and centre and periphery, pointing to the contingency of boundaries formation. Another example would be that of John Young (1755-1825), with his _Series of Portraits of the Emperors of Turkey_ – the London book of 1815 with his engravings derived from Ottoman miniatures (and paintings commissioned in 1808 by Selim III, with vignettes on "my victories" chosen by the Sultan himself) being dedicated to the Prince Regent.(2) Then there are the two portraits (3) by David Wilkie in 1840 of _ Sultan Abdul Mejid_*. The finished one was commissioned by none less than Queen Victoria for reasons of high politics: British diplomacy was seeking an Anglo-Ottoman alliance against Egyptian expansion. The Sultan took the occasion to remind the British that he was a modernising head of State (he ascended the throne the year before, in 1839) through the “Western” uniform which he is wearing (though the “Oriental” connection is recalled thanks to the fez and scimitar). A dress reform had been introduced by his father in 1828-29, and he clearly makes the point that he intends to continue on the path of "Westernisation". The unfinished portrait (commissioned and oversighted by the Ottoman Sultan) does not fit easily within conventional understandings of British Orientalism, and it seems therefore appropriate that this portrait should not have been included in the Tate Exhibition.(4) In contrast, _His Highness Muhammad Ali, Pasha of Egypt_** (also by Wilkie, 1841) is shown in "Oriental" dress – the only concession to modernity on the part of the governor of Egypt from 1805 to 1849 being the fez. All this can be interpreted as showing the Ottoman Empire renegotiating its place in contemporary international politics, notably the three-cornered transactions between Britain, the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman-Egyptians. In her paper on "The Lure of Orientalism: View from the East", Professor Zeynep Çelik (Distinguished Professor of Architecture, New Jersey Institute of Technology) confirmed: Orientalism is not an exclusively Western phenomenon, as Ottoman Orientalism surfaced in the mid-19th century. Paying tribute to Edward Said, she insisted that Orientalism cannot be divorced from politics. Ottoman intellectuals like Halid Ziya in his 1908 novel _Nesl-i Ahir_ (The First Generation) were aware of European blindness, and odalisk paintings were criticised notably by the novelist Ahmed Mithad in his _Avrupa’da Bir Cevelan_ (A Tour in Europe, 1889) and by Fatma Aliye Hanim in her _Nisvan-i Islam_ (Women of Islam, 1893). One can also contrast the paintings of Osman Hamdi Bey (1842-1910), characterised by a form of intellectual Islam, with the titillating representations of his master Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904).(5) Likewise, in "harem" scenes, there is a world of difference between the restraint shown by John Frederick Lewis in _Hharem Life, Constantinople_ (1857)*, and the overt eroticism of Gérôme’s paintings.(6) Ethnographic research, for instance into costumes, led to such publications as _Costumes populaires de la Turquie (1873).(7) At the same time, a popular form of Ottoman Orientalism was clearly visible on advertisements and packaging for cigarette paper or cough syrup. Ottoman architecture was naturally prominent at the Ottoman Exhibition held in Istanbul in 1863, but Professor Çelik also showed a photograph of the impressive Turkish Pavilion at the _Exposition universelle_ of Paris, 1900, (8) and an undated drawing (probably from the late 1880s) in the Prime Minister’s Archives in Istanbul of the Benghazi Barracks in Libya – obviously built in the "Western" style. The talk concluded with an image taken from a special issue of _Servet-i Fünun_ (nos. 592-593, 1902) on the Hijaz Railroad, showing a train on a modern bridge being welcomed by local people in traditional dress – except the officer standing for the Ottoman administration. All this made it clear that the Ottomans aligned themselves with the "civilised world". This first session ended with Questions & Answers. Both speakers agreed that Hamdi Bey presented women as a puzzle, as opposed to the "Western" (especially French) eroticism associated with the harem. The vocabulary is also important: although the terminology is fluctuating, speaking of "the Emperors of Turkey" suggests that the country can be managed, unlike "the Ottoman Emperors", which points to the parallel between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire as entities difficult to manage. After a pause, Dr Nicholas Tromans (Senior Lecturer in Art History at Kingston University, London, and curator of the Exhibition) treated "Orientalism and the Place of the Visual". He started from Said’s critique of Lane’s _Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_ (9) - its supposed absence of narrative and the fact that it was "bogged down in descriptions", as Said puts it.(10) – and explained that in the Catalogue (11) he tried to show that this very faltering of narrative suggested by the intervention of the image allowed some painters to believe in the authenticity of their own Oriental projects: for them, the visual legitimately aspired to be that mode of experience which could not be digested by the self-perpetuating processes of Orientalism. These are the projects that form the basis of the exhibition. Said was sceptical of the visual –and he was not alone (12). This tradition was invoked by Timothy Mitchell in his 1988 book _Colonising Egypt_, in which the act of 'picturing' (of fixing the gaze) is made to do a great deal of the work of Orientalism, and indeed of colonialism – probably, we may now feel, rather too much of the work. Dr Tromans recalled a quotation in the book from an Egyptian educationalist who had visited Paris in the 1820s, and later explained that "one of the beliefs of the Europeans is that the gaze has no effect". Certainly, European tradition long upheld the innocence of the eye and the associated potential of the picture to offer transparent representation. Equally certainly, a Western tradition that Orientals were unable to grasp these principles forms a central plank of the visual culture of Orientalism. This may explain why an uncomprehending William Holman Hunt "felt tantalised by the restrictions imposed" on his looking, as he described his experience in Palestine in 1854: hence perhaps his _Self-Portrait in Oriental Costume_ (after 1875)*, which reflects his frustrations. Later nineteenth-century Orientalist painting has of course long been recognised as a kind of last stand of the Academic tradition: many of its pictorial values are precisely those now looking vulnerable back in London or Paris, and Linda Nochlin did not fail to contrast Gérôme (for instance his _Charmeur de serpents / Snake-charmer_ of c.1883, which Dr Tromans showed as a slide) and Manet. The paper then made a plea in favour of attending more directly to the technologies of visual culture in order to comprehend the power relations around representations. In _Interior of a Mosque, Afternoon Prayer (The 'Asr)_ (before 1857)**, John Frederick Lewis seems to be conscious of these limitations, cultivating repetitive ambiguities: he is himself the “sitter” (as in some others of his paintings), and this leads us to wonder who is drawing the limits: the artist or the pictures? Turning to Lacanian reflections on perspective and vision, Dr Tromans showed a slide of _Pyramids Road_(1873), a tree-lined avenue connecting Cairo to Giza, by Edward Lear, the peripatetic artist, harried from location to location, "manipulated" in Lacan’s terms by the demands of the perspectival field. The talk concluded on the problem of the authority of beauty as a political end: the twentieth century blamed the Middle East for not living up to the West’s beautiful image of it. This raises the question of the West’s culpability: we in the West can no longer envisage a beautiful Middle East – we visualise it as ugly. It is rather the West that betrayed beauty, perhaps because we no longer have the political hope to allow us to believe in it. The last paper of the morning, on "The Modern and the Anti-Modern: The Lessons from the Orient", was given by Professor John MacKenzie (Professor Emeritus in Imperial History, Lancaster University), who began by saying that, being himself interested in art – or vision – he initially found Edward Said’s book full of intriguing insights. But this was a brief impression, which soon wore off. When hearing Said talk of Verdi’s _Aida_ at a conference in Brighton, he thought that something did not ring true: Said did not analyse the text, the ideology, speaking of a "plot that ends in deadlock and entombment". On the contrary, Professor MacKenzie argued, _Aida_ is about nationalism and anticlericalism; in it, Verdi celebrated the underdog, and the end is an apotheosis. Said is also wrong in that the victims of internationalism were able to maintain their _cultural_ independence, and all through the 19th century we find a ubiquitous juxtaposition of the modern and anti-modern. A good example is that of the Great Exhibition of 1851. On the surface, it is the archetype of modernity, with its buildings of iron and glass, but the interior was largely anti-modern. Besides the "wonders of industry" one could find a recurring insistence on handicrafted objects, and the same dichotomy between the industrial and the non-industrial was to be found in all other exhibitions. The South Kensington Museum (which became the Victoria & Albert Museum) was the best showcase of this revival of handicrafts. It must be remembered that each British country-house had to have a display of artefacts from Ethiopia, India, the Sudan – notably weaponry: international loot, in fact. One can also mention Leighton’s Arab Hall in Holland Park, all this culminating perhaps with James Millar’s cast-iron ornaments for the "Eastern Palace" built for the 1901 Glasgow International Exhibition, or "Baghdad by the Kelvin" as it was dubbed by sceptics. The general trend was towards a relief from industrially-produced goods, and towards a world lost which they wished to regain, indicating a sort of civilisational disease - and in conclusion Professor MacKenzie drew a parallel between the attitudes of the Victorian middle classes and those of the middle classes of the Middle East today, arguing that they have a good deal in common. The final Questions & Answers session of the morning, which merged with a panel discussion including all the morning speakers, largely revolved around the authoritativeness or otherwise of Edward Said’s and Linda Nochlin’s writings. While Professor MacKenzie said that we can pick holes in them, Dr Tromans reminded the audience that it was not the authors who were to blame, but the readers who made too much of their theories: one cannot reproach them for the popularity of their writings, even if it sometimes rests on doubtful foundations. Linda Nochlin tried to deal with aesthetics in relation to politics. There must have been among the Orientalist artists a sense of challenge: they were conscious of the difficulties and hostility facing them, but they believed that art could overcome these barriers, and they recorded their troubles in great detail. Beauty can be an oppressive experience. The works in the Exhibition express a fear before the possible disappearance of _real_ Africa, of the _real_ Middle East, and they betray the Europeans’ anxiety. Professor MacKenzie added that there was a long tradition of absorbing the culture of the Other (e.g. with the Chinese in the 18th century), and that international travellers admired the "natives"’ understanding of Nature, while Professor Çelik drew attention to the importance of photography. Very often, these artists started from photographs, which they embellished in their works, choosing rich colours in a bright light. If one considers again Lewis’s self-portrait as a beautiful old man in _Interior of a Mosque, Afternoon Prayer (The 'Asr)_**, whose beauty is it? Dr Tromans believes that the definition was a shifting one: the beautiful matched with images from other cultures in the 19th century. This led Professor Roberts to wonder what the priorities were in the particular field of research into Orientalist paintings if one was to go beyond the important work already done by Edward Said and Linda Nochlin. Dr Tromans’s priority would go to devoting more attention to the technologies of visual culture. Professor Çelik would choose further questioning of the boundaries and Professor MacKenzie would like to see much more cross-disciplinary analysis, including for instance the history of tourism. Dr Tromans pointed out that it should be the scholar’s duty all the time - Professor Roberts adding in conclusion that rigorous investigation remained the order of the day. The afternoon’s theme was "Orientalism and the Politics of Representation", Raficq Abdulla, MBE (Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Business and Law, Kingston University) being in the Chair – and the first speaker, Dr Charles Small (Director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, Yale University), entered the political field straightaway with his paper on "From the Gaze of the Colonial and Post-Colonial: Judeo-phobia, Empire, Islamism". He began by showing excerpts from a Syrian-produced television series, ‘Al-Shatat’ (the diaspora). This harrowing episode, “Jews Murder a Christian Child and Use His Blood for Passover Matzos”,(13) deriving from the notorious forgery, the _Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion_, and broadcast on Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan) evening, 20 October 2005, on a Jordanian TV network, _Al-Mamnou'_, was used by Dr Small to make his central point that one must distinguish between Judaeophobia, which has to do with discrimination, and Anti-Semitism, which is genocidal. For him, the Hamas Charter (14) is evidence of the genocidal intentions of radical Islam, and he showed other pictorial examples of Anti-Semitism in the Middle East. The connection with Edward Said is that he was an Arab and that according to Dr Small, he saw Jews as usurpers. In this reading of Said’s work, the author of _Orientalism_ made no distinction between Jews and Christian Europeans – they were perpetrators rather than victims: successionists, in fact. Dr Small sees Said’s impact as leading to the de-Judaeisation of Orientalism: for Said, Orientalism was directed against the Arabs, not the Jews. Dr Kamran Rastegar (Lecturer in Arabic and Persian Literatures, University of Edinburgh) followed with "Curating Diaspora Artists of Muslim-majority Societies in the Metropole: A Third Space, or Neo-Orientalism?" He remarked that Said’s intention is not the point. His book led to the emergence of a small industry, which is not always good. Art institutions like museums and art galleries canonise art objects and give status to artists, and curators do the same. The museum is a form of cultural tourism, and this is especially true of Exhibitions devoted to the Islamic world, which have no connection with the culture of religious people. In the West, the sacred and the profane are mixed, and the coherence of Islam is lost. He took as an example the 2006 Exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA),(15) of artists who "come from the Islamic world, but do not live there", in the words of the curator, Fereshteh Daftari. The show avoided political discussion altogether, with artists only being "consumed" within the frame of Islam, and even the one section (out of five) on "Identity in Question" was inadequate. Dr Rastegar commented upon a number of works, notably Mona Hatoum’s _Exodus II_ (2002), an image (the hole left by a car bomb) from Atlas Group’s _ My Neck is Thinner than a Hair_ (2000-2003),(16) Anoush Abrar’s _Portraits of Iranian Jews in Los Angeles_ (17) Kamrooz Aram’s _The Gleam of the Morning’s First Beam_ (2005),(18) and Emily Jacir’s _Memorial to 418 Palestinian Villages which were Destroyed, Depopulated and Occupied by Israel in 1948_ (2001).(19) Discussing Kutlug Ataman’s phallic calligraphy, he saw it as meaningless and wondered about the Islamic dimension in it. He concluded on the West’s misconception of Islamic art as an instrument of cultural control. Is Islamism a universal framework? Like all art, Islamic art is a reflection of and a response to the world in which it is produced. After Dr Small answered questions on the propriety or otherwise of showing such clips, and no Israeli anti-Arab propaganda, and Dr Rastegar others on whether he had met the MoMA curator and discussed the _Without Boundary_ Exhibition with her (he had not) and why he had not (apparently his request for an interview did not materialise), the Chairman introduced Professor Ziauddin Sardar (Columnist and author [notably of _Why Do People Hate America?_ 2002], Visiting Professor of Postcolonial Studies, City University, London), who spoke on "Orientalism: Then and Now". "Where is the East?", Professor Sardar asked first. Orientalism is about Islam and Muslims. When he sees the pictures of harems in the current Exhibition, he thinks of his wife, his mother, his daughter and of the Westerner’s reaction. Is it only representation? Or does it have other consequences? What is the Westerner’s gaze at Muslim women in Bradford? He does not like that – he is worried, and he is in the Said industry. Orientalism is a discourse, a structure of knowledge, based on ignorance – and it has a long history, which begins with Islamism. The Muslim "terrorist", violent, untrustworthy, has a long history – it is part of Western Orientalism – dating back to the Saracens, the "Barbarians", justifying a pathology of fear: the West is always looking for weapons of mass destruction. This can be internalised by Professor Sardar, or he can start "Orientalising" himself. The paintings shown in the Exhibition freeze the stereotypes, which can be invoked when necessary. The hate is perpetuated by such constructions, though Professor Sardar does not deny that some have beauty. But one must never look at these images out of context, and the constant question must be "what is it saying about my neighbour"? Orientalism is an aesthetic of saying, but the time has now come for listening. The last speaker was Professor Bashir Makhoul (Head of the Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton), on "Occupation of an Equal Space". For the author of _Orientalism_, he argued, it is a negative term – and we agree with Said. It is seductive, erotic, exotic, and it troubles Professor Makhoul. The Exhibition is a tourists’ exhibition: what we have is not artists with their brushes but tourists with their cameras. Turning to today’s politics, he showed a montage with the colours of the Palestinian flag, commenting that the penalty for showing this in Israel is six months’ imprisonment. He then showed some of his works relating to the conflict, like _Points of View_, a "wallpaper pattern" which is based on bullet impacts on walls in Beirut,(20) or _My Olive Tree_, a tree with no roots, with no land, and a moving image, _Jerusalem_. All these works show that in the Middle East (as everywhere else in the world) art is indissociable from politics. After a pause, all the speakers joined in a general round table. Professor MacKenzie launched the debate by declaring that he was opposed to State executions and that there were many such executions in Iran – how is he to represent his opposition without falling into the Orientalist trap? Professor Sardar answered that you "Orientalise" people not by criticising, but by stereotypes. A question from the audience raised the issue of demonisation: for instance President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was insulted during his visit to Columbia University on 25 September 2007. Professor Small believes that we cannot be bound by racist Orientalism. But there is a narrative of genocide – which also affects India and Pakistan - coming from Empire and decolonisation, with stories of the poisoning of wells, even of Mohammed poisoned by Jews. The problem is how to stop this genocidal hatred. For Professor Sardar, who wonders how much film there is on Palestine murders by Israel, Professor Small falls into the trap of over-generalisation. He glosses over the immense complexity of the situation, even in Iran – and this weakens his argument. The discussion then turned to the idea that, for Said, Lane was a sexual tourist. Professor Sardar believes that an Orientalist painting is the creation of a certain representation, which continues today in the British media – and this must stop. How can the pattern be broken?, a young artist from the audience asked: she wants to practise a _positive_ Orientalism, and not to be a tourist – which led Professor Makhoul to point out that the context is not the same. The objective today must be to make people more aware. Professor Sardar agreed: it is all a question of intention – Said was right. Christine Riding wonders whether Orientalism is still a useful term and she invited questions on curatorial choices. To launch the discussion, she could for instance say why Lewis's 1850 watercolour _The Hhareem_ was not in the current exhibition: in spite of all efforts (including diplomatic channels) it proved impossible to borrow it. Professor Çelik asked her why the choice was made to stick with paintings, when so much can also be conveyed by photographs, journals and film. Dr Tromans pointed to the practicalities of getting and showing a number of objects – but this was not the main reason: behind the Exhibition, there was a desire to make progress in our knowledge of _British_ _painting_. Of course, the curators were aware that this is only one medium, and of course they were aware of the drawbacks. Professor Roberts posed the problem of expatriates like Henriette Browne*, wondering whether the category "Orientalism" does not introduce unwelcome limitations. Christine Riding recalled that this is the first exhibition of its kind in Britain: naturally, such extensions would be good for future events. The title of the Exhibition was debated for two years, and "The Lure of the East" is not a curatorial, but a marketing decision: half jokingly, one could say that it is a Government demand to counter the lure of football.(21) Professor Sardar sees a Nationalist note in the decision to include only _British_ painting: why exclude the French Orientalists? One reason, given by Christine Riding, is that the Tate is in fact the National Gallery of British Art; another, conceded by Dr Tromans, is that Yes, there was a Nationalist agenda: they wanted to show the British way of doing things – one can discern a British "regional variety" of Orientalism, with more precision, more accuracy in some of the paintings. The French way is more "erotic" – the archetype being Gérôme’s _For Sale: Slaves at Cairo_*. Professor Roberts concluded by saying that it will be interesting to see the reactions to that when the Exhibition moves to Istanbul. Uneasiness was expressed by a member of the audience at labelling the painters as “Orientalists”.Was this not a form of political posturing, a way of proclaming "I’m the only true voice of the Orient"? Another found "the East" in the title problematic – to which Christine Riding replied that the team had spent five years discussing this. Professor Sardar repeated that he does not like the Exhibition, because these representations are clichés. He does not recognise himself in it, and he does not want to be represented like that. Dr Tromans underlined that this is exceptionalism generated though the medium, i.e. British painting, to which Professor Çelik added that this is historical material – what is one to do with it? Letting the other voices in today would not solve the problem: we must have a historical approach. Professor Small disagreed: the Other is necessary – and Professor Sardar somehow concurred: the "East" is the opposite of the "West", and by using the word "lure", we yield to all constructions. Not unexpectedly, a member of the audience asked whether it was too cynical to see the "lure" as the oil: what about the fact that the Exhibition was due to travel to Istanbul and Sharjah? The panel agreed with a smile on that possible interpretation of the "lure", but Christine Riding explained that no concessions had been made, except on one point, for which the curatorial team entertained grave doubts anyway: the word “Arabesque”, which had been suggested at some stage in the preparatory phase, was rejected out of hand in Istanbul. The title _The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting_ will be kept in both venues, however. Notes An asterisk* denotes that a painting is part of the Exhibition. Two asterisks** denote that a painting is part of the Exhibition and shown on the Tate’s dedicated site: http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/britishorientalistpainting/explor e/ (1) 'Millais, Hunt and Modern Life' Symposium, 30 November 2007. See H-Museum Archive: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-museum&month=0712&we ek=b&msg=m4aCTXQs00%2bxJCl%2b2adG3g&user=&pw= The Exhibition itself was reviewed on 2 December 2007. See H-Museum Archive: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-museum&month=0712&we ek=a&msg=GJXuiM2AZ8HQp2nNBqhczw&user=&pw= (2) _A Series of Portraits of the Emperors of Turkey, from the Foundation of the Monarchy to the Year 1815. Engraved from Pictures painted at Constantinople. Commenced under the auspices of Sultan Selim the Third, and completed by command of Sultan Mahmoud the Second. With a biographical Account of each of the Emperors. Recueil des portraits des empereurs ottomans. Suite des portraits des empereurs turcs, depuis la fondation de la monarchie jusqu'à l'an 1815_. By John Young, engraver in mezzotinto to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent. London : Printed by W. Bulmer & co., 1815. (3) This is a complicated story. There were to have been three versions. Only one (shown at the Exhibition, and now in the Royal Collection) was finished. The second version (ordered by Abdulmecid [Abdul Mejid] himself, and now at Topkapi Palace) was left unfinished at Wilkie’s death in 1841. A third one, which had been commissioned by Mehemet [Muhammad] Ali, Pasha of Egypt, when Wilkie went to Alexandria to paint his own portrait, was never started. (4) The finished one shown in London will not go to Istanbul because it is too fragile to travel. (5) The Exhibition shows his _For Sale: Slaves at Cairo_, c.1871. (6) See for instance: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/verat/Jean_Leon_Gerome.htm (7) Osman Hamdi Bey et al. _Les costumes populaires de la Turquie en 1873 : Ouvrage publieì sous le patronage de la Commission impeìriale ottomane pour l'Exposition universelle de Vienne_. Texte par Son Excellence Hamdy bey ... et Marie de Launay ... Phototypie de Seìbah. Constantinople : Imprimerie du "Levant Times & Shipping Gazette", 1873. (8) A typically Western “Orientalist” picture can be seen on: http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/art/164823/The_Turkish_Pavilion_at_the_U niversal_Exhibition_of_1900_Paris See also: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooklyn_museum/2485984359/in/set-7215760465608 9762/ (9) Lane, Edward William, 1801-1876. _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the modern Egyptians_. Written in Egypt during the Years 1833, 34, and 35, partly from Notes made during a former Visit to that Country in the Years 1825, 26, 27, and 28. Two volumes. The Library of Entertaining Knowledge. London : Charles Knight & Co, 1836-1837. (10) Said, Edward W. _Orientalism_. New York : Pantheon Books, 1978 (“With a New Afterword”. London : Penguin, 1995), p. 162. (11) Tromans, Nicholas [Editor]. _The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting_. With texts by Rana Kabbani, Fatema Mernissi, Christine Riding and Emily M. Weeks. London : Tate, 2008. Paperback, 224 p. ISBN: 1854377337 ; 9781854377333. (12) Martin Jay. _Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought_. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1993. (13) The clip is visible on the site of the Middle East Media Research Institute: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/895.htm (14) The Charter is reprinted on the Yale University site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm (15) _Without Boundary: Seventeen Ways of Looking_ February 26–May 22, 2006 http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2006/15_ways.html (16) Visible on the Tate site: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=84100 (17) Visible on: http://www.anoush.ch/images/Iranianjews/iranian-jewish.html (18) Visible on: http://www.kamroozaram.com/works/12.html (19) Visible on: http://www.stationmuseum.com/Made_in_Palestine-Emily_Jacir/jacir.html (20) Visible on: http://www.drumcroon.org.uk/Arch1/Still/Bashir.html (21) For the benefit of H-Museum subscribers outside Europe, it must be recalled that the opening of the Exhibition almost coincided with the European Football (soccer) Cup, with matches lasting for several weeks and attracting a massive television audience every day. ================= Tate Britain Millbank London SW1P 4RG E-mail: email@example.com Recorded information : 020 7887 8008 (international +44 20 7887 8008) The Lure of the East tickets : £10 The Lure of the East Exhibition Hours: Daily, 10.00-17.40 (last admission 17.00) www.tate.org.uk -- H-MUSEUM H-Net Network for Museums and Museum Studies E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW: http://www.h-museum.net