The History of Orientalism

Intricate carpets, sun-drenched desert cities, starlit skies, glowing minarets, bustling bazaars, overflowing with spices, silk, and voices. This is how I imagine the Orient. No, that's not it. It's a stereotype. The Orient is not an Aladdin movie. Okay, then it's Islam, it's women's oppression, it's burqas, it's terror, No, you got it all wrong. That is an exaggeration shown by the media. Okay, well, if it's neither one, then what is it? How would you describe the Orient? How do we represent it without falling into stereotypes and cliches? In very simplistic terms, it's the Orient as viewed by the Occidental person. Let's time travel to the 19th century. Napoleon launches his military campaign in Egypt, but he doesn't come alone. Alongside his soldiers, he brings a group of Western scholars, artists, people who came to study, analyze, and decode the ancient world. Among their discoveries in Egypt is the Rosetta Stone, the key that will unlock the secrets of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and open the door to an ancient civilization. In the decades that follow, European expeditions spread across the Middle East into the Levant, Arabia, Persia. They don't just discover the remnants of ancient civilizations, they also encounter the living cultures of the Islamic world. The architecture, textiles, calligraphy, landscapes, languages, and the rhythms of daily life. Western artists begin to paint these new visual worlds, domes and minarets, flowing robes, bustling markets. These exotic scenes are displayed in salons and galleries across Europe, captivating the public's imagination. At home, readers indulge in Middle Eastern literature, especially tales from 1001 Nights, filled with sultans, desert thieves, and flying carpets. English translations of Persian poetry became widely available. Poets such as Hafez, Omar Khayyam, and Rumi were introduced to Western audiences. Art played a crucial role in introducing new landscapes and cultures to audiences back home. And this is why I would like to introduce Skillshare as the sponsor of this video. I find it to be one of the most educational and inspiring platforms for artists. I've been drawing as a hobby ever since I was a kid, and one challenging aspect of drawing characters for me is anatomy and positioning. This is why my favorite class of the moment is how to improve your figure drawing step by step. The teacher breaks down the techniques needed to draw each part of the body, how to depict a body in action, or various poses. I love looking at other people's finished projects as inspiration. It gives you a good idea of what you could achieve if you follow the same class. Not to mention that you can also get encouragements from other people by posting your own progress. I love how supportive the community is on this platform. The first 500 people to use my link in the description will receive a 20% off their first year of Skillshare. Get started today! Let's return to the 19th century. Here enters Lord Byron, the famous English romantic poet. He traveled extensively across the Ottoman Empire, including places such as Greece, Albania, Turkey, and the Levant. He even encouraged the Greek war of independence against the Ottoman Empire. Byron played a key role in popularizing Orientalist poetry. Turkish Tales is a series of narrative poems set in the Ottoman Empire, exploring themes of love, adventure, and conflict. In one of his most famous poems called the Gayur, Byron explores a taboo love affair between a Muslim woman and a Christian man. A Christian man named the Gayur, which means the infidel, falls in love with Leila, a woman from a Turkish harem. When her master Hasan discovers the love affair, he kills her. In revenge, the Christian man kills the master. The poem ends with the Christian man confessing his story to a monk, revealing his inner torment. He believes himself to be damned. Byron explores the tension between Christian Europe and Muslim Middle East. He highlights the differences in religion and gender norms in order to intensify the drama in his stories. The Orient is both admired and feared, sometimes noble, sometimes barbaric. He explores illicit love across cultural lines, a romance that is both intense and erotic because of the tension, but also tragic because it is inevitably doomed. Fast forward to the 1920s, and the western world experiences a craze for Egyptology. Howard Carter's discovery of King Tut's nearly intact tomb amazes the world and creates a global obsession with ancient Egypt. It's the era of flappers and ancient Egypt revival. Egyptian motifs and aesthetics are found in designer collections and are then made fashion. Decades later, Elizabeth Taylor would play as Cleopatra, and the entire ancient world would be brought into popular culture. During that same time, there was even an entire genre of desert romance fiction. The Sheikh, The Sons of the Sheikh, The Desert Healer, The Garden of Allah, add to that other famous Orientalist novels such as La Le Roux or Salome by Oscar Wilde. Many shows and movies would feature Orientalist tropes that drew from Persian, Arabic, and Turkish imagery. For example, the American sitcom I Dream of Jenny ran between 1955 and 1970. Tony, an astronaut, rubs a strange bottle and a beautiful Persian-speaking female genie materializes and surprises him by kissing him. The series then follows their romantic adventures. Juxtaposed to all this, Orientalist media in the West, Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and Lebanon were westernizing themselves. You've probably seen these types of images that showcase women in the Middle East before the Islamic Revolution. Notice that they are not wearing a veil, they are wearing short skirts. They look so liberated from a western perspective. If you went back 50 years in the past and asked any random westerner what their opinion about the Middle East was, they most likely would have described it as an exotic and enchanting place. With all of this in mind, we realize that for almost two entire centuries, the western world was deeply infatuated with the Orient. They included Orientalist imagery in their popular media such as novels, poems, paintings, TV shows, and movies. Interestingly, despite the major cultural differences, their perspective of the Orient was not necessarily negative. It was a place of mysticism, adventure, with a hint of taboo. It was an interesting time period because simultaneously, Middle Eastern nations were rediscovering their ancient past from antiquity. The science of archaeology, which was initially a byproduct of colonialism, would expand and take a large proportion. Discoveries and excavations of artifacts and monuments from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, were fueling new nationalistic identities. Islam, which used to be the main marker of identity in the Middle East since the Middle Ages, was slowly being pushed aside while these Middle Eastern nations were redefining their history. For example, the Shah of Iran leaned heavily on the history of ancient Persia to define his nation. He even invited a host of royals and representatives from a majority of countries in the world to celebrate the 2500th year of the Persian nation. This massive party was hosted in the ancient site of Persepolis. The discovery of the Cyrus Cylinder also bolstered his claim of leading a nation that first defined the concept of human rights. Edward Said's work, Orientalism, sent shockwaves in the West and the Middle East when it was first published in 1978. He puts forward some pretty bold claims. Said argues that Orientalism, or the Orient, was not a real and objective place. It was a constructed image made by the West. This image is often backwards, irrational, exotic, mystical, and inferior compared to the rational, civilized, and superior Europe. Said even goes further in his argumentation. He argues that Orientalism is not just about literature and culture. It's also a tool of imperialism and colonialism. By portraying the East as being inferior and backwards, Western powers justified their intervention in the Middle East as being a civilizing mission. Edward Said's thesis in Orientalism combines both political history and cultural critique, and it's important to separate these two elements in order to better understand the situation. Let's start with political history. It's important to recognize that Western powers had clear geopolitical motivations in the Middle East, and one of these goals was to undermine and weaken the Ottoman Empire, which was a long-standing rival of the West. This was done to access trade routes and resources, which were precious. Napoleon's goal when campaigning in Egypt was to influence the region, which was under the Ottoman Empire. Another example is Lawrence of Arabia, who was tasked by the British to incite Arab revolts against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. This directly served British interests. According to Said, all these geopolitical motivations were masked under narratives of liberation and bringing civilization to foreign lands. Imperial ambitions were sold as benevolent interventions. The post-war division of the Middle East further reflects this mindset. The modern borders of countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Jordan were largely drawn by the British and French, not with local consent, but to secure their own strategic and economic interests. These new borders weren't drawn based on ethnic, religious, and tribal identities. They were drawn to maximize imperial control, to divide potential opposition, and to secure access to resources such as oil and trade routes. This border definition, which is a legacy of colonialism, still causes problem and conflict to this day. With all of this in mind, we realize that Western interventions in the Middle East were not based on pure and innocent motivations. Imperial ambitions were definitely part of the equation. When it comes to the science of archaeology, it was simultaneously used to propel Western civilization and to grant the West an aura of authority. By discovering and taking artifacts from places such as Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, the West was positioning itself as the rightful heir of global heritage, even though these lands were still inhabited by local people. Here I want to add some nuance by mentioning that not all Western figures shared the same opinion, even in the 19th century. For instance, Lord Byron was against the acquisition of the Parthenon marbles by the British Museum, viewing it as a violation of a significant cultural and historic monument. He even expressed his disapproval through poetry lamenting the removal of the sculptures from their original site. This example highlights the diversity of opinions even within the Western sphere and reminds us that generalizations can sometimes be misleading. Some prominent figures did express empathy towards the heritage of other cultures. Now that we've explored the political lens of Orientalism, let's dive into the cultural critique and that is where I partly disagree with Saeed. I don't think that the genre of media that emerged from this cultural interaction between the West and the Orient was necessarily malicious. Throughout history, when cultures have come into contact with one another and sometimes through conflict, they have produced interesting cross-cultural art. For example, after the conquest of Alexander the Great, Hellenistic art spread through Egypt, Persia and parts of India. Greco-Buddhist art is an interesting example of cross-cultural art that mixes Buddhist subject matters with Greek artistic techniques. Another example would be Alhambra which mixes Islamic and Greco-Roman architecture or Persian miniatures that blend Mongol, Chinese and Islamic artistic traditions and create a new visual style. In this sense, I disagree with the idea that all Western representations of the Orient are inherently tied to power. I see this artistic evolution as a natural byproduct of colonialism but not intrinsically linked to it and the distinction is important. On one hand, there's the view that this art serves as a tool of domination while on the other hand, it can be seen as a natural and organic outcome of cultural interactions. One perspective is calculating and manipulative while the other perspective is spontaneous and reciprocal. Obviously, it's a nuanced matter and you have to analyze each piece of media independently to arrive at a conclusion. Whatever the initial underlying motives were about archaeology, we have to recognize that it did develop into a serious and rigorous science and that it ended up benefiting a large host of people who now had extensive knowledge about their own ancestors. The humanist approach brought by Europeans who studied the past in an objective and detached manner helped us better understand the history of humanity. One of Said's critique is the romanticization of the Orient as if Westerners had stripped the Orient of all of its nuance and complexities and instead painted an exotic image of it. To that, I say that romanticism isn't uniquely targeted at the Orient. It's rather an expressive mode that has shaped our perspective of many different eras and places, including the Middle Ages, Ancient Greece, and even the prehistoric world. Romanticism is what draws people in, it's what catches their interest and transports them to another universe. Romantic depictions of the Middle Ages have created an entire genre of fantasy that has shaped pop culture. Think of LARPing, Renaissance Fairs, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Dungeons and Dragons. All of these elements are deeply embedded in modern culture. Oh, but a romantic depiction of the past is not historically accurate. Well, that's not the point. The point is to create an atmosphere, it's to catch a vibe. You pick the elements which you find to be the most interesting, the most memorable, and you create an entire enchanting universe with them. Personally, as a Middle Easterner, I enjoy looking at Orientalist paintings. And yes, we can talk about the issues and inaccuracies, but I find beauty in them. I don't think these paintings were made by people who hated the East. Perhaps they had their own stereotypes, but I see these works of art as an expression of longing, escapism, fascination even. I would argue that the West's artistic engagement with the Orient was often driven by curiosity and admiration, not just by a desire to dominate and diminish. Of course, some portrayals were distorted and exoticized, but the claim that all Western representations of the Orient were fundamentally degrading reduces the complexity of how these Western artists and scholars encountered the Orient. Many were aware of these cultural differences, but also drawn to them, sometimes even critical of their own cultures in comparison. We have to keep in mind that the Western view of the Orient is not a single monolithic discourse on power. It's fragmented, it's evolving, and it's sometimes even contradictory. Why? Because it literally did a 180. The date of publication of this book is very interesting to me because it's on the eve of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Iran, which leaned heavily on this Orientalist image of itself and which held close ties with the West, went through a profound transformation that sent shockwaves through the Middle East and the West. It became an Islamic republic. Before 1979, Islamist factions did not hold political power. They were considered to be fringe, but after the Iranian Revolution, they started gaining in popularity. The Iranian Revolution legitimized the idea that an Islamic government was not only feasible, but could also potentially be powerful. Sunnis and Shias competed for leadership in the Muslim world, which created a domino effect of radicalization, with different factions fighting against one another. Slowly but surely, the romanticized Orient, once imagined by the West, disappeared, and the final nail in the coffin was the tragic event of 9-11. I would say that Disney's Aladdin was one of the last pieces of popular media that depicted Orientalist imagery. Terrorism, women's oppression, and war were at the forefront of everyone's mind when thinking about the Middle East. The place once known for magic carpets and glowing minarets was now known as the land of forever wars and never-ending conflict. One topic gained significant traction from all of this and would become a major political subject ever since. The Muslim woman. Is she oppressed? Should she be liberated? How do we liberate her? What do we make of her? When Europeans first traveled to the Middle East and North Africa, they were confronted with a different culture and mentality regarding women. Women were veiled and hidden from the public. Europeans also came across a new institution, the harem. Harems were common in many wealthy Middle Eastern households until the 20th century. They were a private space for women, including wives, children, servants, and concubines. Since they were denied entry to these harems, they let their imagination run wild as to what was going inside them. They painted harems as a sensual and erotic fantasy. Beautiful naked women belly dancing for the sultan. Now the reality was obviously much more tame. One painter would manage to depict accurately what was going inside them. Eugène Delacroix found it difficult to sketch Arabic women. Whenever he would try to sketch them from afar, the Arabic women would immediately alert their husbands. Delacroix was at the Algerian port on the way back home when he met a merchant who gave him access to his household's harem. Delacroix then painted his famous work of art called the Women of Algiers. As you can see, it was far from the sensual fantasy that was imagined by other painters. We have to understand the differences in gender norms between the West and the Middle East. In many parts of Europe, aristocratic women were expected to appear in public alongside their husbands, but their dress and conduct was strictly regulated by social and religious norms. By contrast, many Muslim societies placed limits on women's public visibility. However, a greater degree of freedom was granted to them in female-only places such as the home, the harem, the bathhouse. They weren't as tightly regulated by men because they were inside a women's-only environment. While both systems were patriarchal, they operated differently. One emphasized public participation with strict behavioral codes, while the other emphasized segregation but with a degree of freedom within the private sphere. Each imposed different constraints but also allowed for different kinds of autonomy and agency. The Western model clearly won and was spread through globalization and modernization. Different waves of feminism also expanded women's rights and freedoms. Women were encouraged to seek an education, to get in the workforce, to participate in public life in the same way men did. They were also given a greater degree of freedom in regards to their dress code and to their sexual decisions. But we have to understand that the Western world had centuries of gradual progress before it reached a point of women's liberation. The transition was much more quick and sudden for the Muslim world. Iran, for example, was a very traditional and conservative society up until the beginning of the 20th century. Women wore the veil and chador and followed conservative Muslim gender roles. However, things changed drastically in 1935. Reza Shah of Iran, at that time Persia, issued a decree known as the which banned all Islamic veils and many types of male traditional clothing. This was done in an effort to modernize Iran. The ban lasted five years after which women were given the freedom to choose whether they wanted to veil or not. One of the legacies of Reza Shah was that it made veiling into a fundamental political issue in the country. The society experienced a complete pendulum swing after the Iranian revolution of 1979 which now imposed the veil on women. Iranian society was now divided in two distinct camps. One was more traditional Islamic while the other was more liberal and modern. I would argue that permanent change doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. It takes generation to warm up to new ideas and lifestyles. When radical change happens overnight, it fuels extremism on both ends and sadly this has been the situation in the Middle East and Iran for the past century. A society that hasn't completely let go of its traditional roots but has now been catapulted into modernity without the proper preparation. This even reflects in the way the West perceives the Orient. You have the Orientalist image versus the Islamist one. Both are caricatures. One critique of Saeed wrote an interesting paragraph. The real story here that Saeed reveals against his intentions is the remarkable fact that Europeans and Americans in the 19th century knew more about the cultures of the Middle East than we do now. They read the tales of a thousand and one knights and dreamt of the Alhambra. Was this just a complacent imperialist celebration of power based on the contrast between nostalgia for the great Oriental past and contempt for the Arab present? No, I think there was real curiosity and admiration. But where has it gone? Today, the West is bleakly incurious about the history of Islam, its art, peoples and learning. There's a blank wall of terror. This wall has been strengthened by Saeed's book because it closes down a crucial way for cultures to encounter one another. It closes down romanticism. I'm an idealist. In my ideal world, we would all love and admire each other. But unfortunately, that's not reality. But if politics are going to divide us, at least let art bridge the gap. In this sense, perhaps the Orientalism of the 19th and 20th century was better than what we have now, which in many cases is just hatred and ignorance. As an Iranian who was born and raised in the West, I feel torn because I deeply love and admire these two cultures, but they are divided by politics. We might need romanticism, aesthetics and beauty to ease the encounters between both cultures. A bit of Orientalism here and there sprinkled to create a harmonious relationship. When I visited Iran two months ago with my husband, and it was his first time traveling to the Middle East, we explored various parts of the country. We went north next to the Caspian Sea, which was lush green. We went to Tehran, the capital, which was full of life and action. We visited Persepolis and archaeological sites and the history of ancient Persia. But our favorite part of the trip was Yazd, which was a desert city and truly the Orientalist image imagined by Europeans in the 19th century. It was as if you would enter a Tale of a Thousand and One Nights, as if you entered the world of Aladdin. I understood the Orientalists, I understood why they were drawn to this landscape and why they depicted it so often, because it was romantic and so different from what there is in Europe and North America. I don't know how the Western view of the Orient will evolve and I don't know how the Oriental view of the West will evolve, but I hope it's on a more positive trajectory. I hope you guys enjoyed and I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Bye!