A Gaze through the Veil:

Introduction“In any society, the principal guardians of free expression are individualartists and intellectuals who push the limits of permissible discourse andchallenge the predominant ideology.” (Middle East Watch, 2003)As an artist in a society where free speech and free expression can be exercisedwithout restriction one can take this right for granted. Throughout the research of thisthesis it was important to try and understand how society would function if theserights were not in practice. By examining the country of Iran and the strict censorshipand restrictive laws that have been placed on the people since the country transformedinto an Islamic Republic, I hope that one can see the implications that are caused bythe loss of the right of free expression and free speech.The censorship regime and the fundamentalist values that have been imposed on thecitizens of Iran, have all contributed to the stifling of free expression and a societywere fear has contributed to a culture of self censorship. This thesis commences withan analysis of the Iranian government since the revolution of 1979 and it’stransformation into an Islamic republic. By examining the fundamentalist regime thatwas put in place and the structured government that imposed these laws of censorship,I want to illustrate the consequences that have been experienced by the artists andacademics of Iran. The censorship regime is a complex and structured system, and thevigilante groups that are also acting to impose these fundamentalist religious valuesare all contributing to a restricted society. I examine some of the laws that have beenimposed and the artists that have suffered the consequences of not complying withthese restrictions.I have based my discussion on Iran around the work of the Iranian female artist ShirinNeshat. Neshat’s work comments on the restrictions that the people of Iran have hadto experience, such as sex-segregation, restrictions on actions, speech and dress.Neshat is remarking on a society that had transformed since her departure to Americain 1973 and her return to Iran in 1990. Neshat works from the perspective of two verydivergent cultural backgrounds, her work succeeds in creating a universal languagenot only commenting on the conditions of life in Iran but also revealing an insight intothe Westerns perception of the East. Neshats “images challenge equations betweenindividualism, feminism and cultural expression, and productively illustrate the

complex interaction of social discourse and personal agency that constitutessubjectivity.” (Moore, 2002, p.3) Throughout my discussion, I use Neshats work toemphasis the restrictions that have been imposed on the people of Iran and how thefundamentalist regime has taken hold of the freedom of expression throughcensorship and violence.“Freedom of expression means that every individual has theright to hold opinions and to express them without fear. It isthe right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas ofall kinds, through any medium of choice. Censorshipencompasses all interfaces with these basis rights.”(Callamard, 2006)

Chapter One: The Oppressed and the Oppressors.Iran was a constitutional monarchy ruled by a Shah until 1979; at this time an uprisingled by Islamic religious leaders resulted in the establishment of an Islamic Republic.In the years following the 1979 revolution, a series of new laws and regulations wereimposed on the citizens of Iran, these rules had a major effect on the artists ofIran.(Ervand,1993) In this chapter I will discuss how these laws emerged and how theleader of the revolution imposed a cultural reform upon Iran. I will examine thegoverning bodies and vigilante groups that enforce these restrictions by looking at thecensorship laws and the self-censorship that has evolved from these restrictions. I willlook at the consequences that have been experienced by some artists and how theseissues have been addressed by the Iranian artist Shirin Neshat.The function of these new laws which were applied after the Revolution was toenforce the rules and values of a fundamentalist regime upon the population. Theselaws had a major impact on artistic and academic communities. If an artist’s work oran academics writings did not comply with the values of Islam or spoke out againstthe government, they were met by severe punishments. In the early 1980’s manyartists and academic’s where banned, tortured, killed or forced into exile due to notmeeting these regulations. Although in recent years these laws have slightly relaxedand the artistic scene in Iran has flourished especially in film. This is only an illusionof free expression as today there is still an existence of a strict censorship regime inIran and a series of governing bodies that impose these laws. Artistic freedom is notthe only element that is restricted by these laws as there is a very strict policy in effectfor free speech and the freedom of the press. These laws that are imposed areextremely unpredictable; they are applied selectively and inconsistently. No stabilityexists for an artist in Iran, even if their previous work has been accepted, their futurework is still at risk and consequently this could lead to personal ruin, punishment,censorship or banning of their work. (Callamard, 2006)There is no independent newspaper in Iran this indicates that there is still a stronghold on free speech. Also books and films are issued a release permit but only afterfacing a rigorous series of political vetting. Every issue of a magazine must be

PART IIDRAWINGS AND TECHNICAL DATA

fundamentalist values. Khomeini stated: “The road to reform in a country, goesthrough its culture, so one has to start cultural reform.”(Callamard, 2006, p.6)To apply this objective Khomeini constructed a new system of governance to imposestrict new laws into the culture of Iran. He established a position which is called theSupreme Leader, this is the highest ranking official of the Islamic republic and has thepower of rule over the nation, and The Supreme Leader is the chief leader of moralityand is declared responsible for keeping the population on the path of righteousness.Khomeini described the function of this position asMen would not be able to keep their ordained path and toenact Gods laws unless a trustworthy and protective individual(or power) were appointed over them with the responsibilityfor this matter, to prevent them from stepping outside thesphere of the licit and transgressing against the right of others(Middle East Watch, 1993)So the government was transformed into a paternalistic model. The government wasstructured as such; The Supreme Leader was the highest ruling power, part of his dutywas to elect six of the twelve clergymen on The Council of Guardians. Although thepresident is seen as the second highest ranking official of the government, his poweris restricted by the Council of Guardians. The Council of Guardians is anexceptionally powerful council; they have the authority to decide which laws arepassed by parliament and decide if these laws conformed to Sharia Law. They alsodetermine which candidates run for the presidential and parliamentary elections.The rest of the government was made up of various councils, who were given powerin their different departments. In relation to censorship, Khomeini established twocouncils. The first is the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council (SCRC); the SCRC isthe “highest body for producing guidelines and making decisions in relation to allcultural, educational and research activities.”(Callamard, 2006, p.7). He alsoestablished the Ministry of Culture and Information Guidance (MCIG), the MCIG isan “elaborate system of councils that regulate and monitor every sphere of artisticexpression” (Callamard, 2006, p.7). By establishing this systematic government,Khomeini’s new culture, based on a fundamentalist regime began to take shape.

The MCIG is the main power that has affected artists in Iran. An artist or academicwho wanted to publish or exhibit their work were forced to obtain permission. Theseworks were inspected by different bodies within the MCIG. This authorization couldtake weeks, months or years and after this wait, the work could be eventually denied.The direct censorship instruments at the states disposal areblunt and wide-ranging: these include highly repressive laws,supported by an array of regulations and guidelines thatdelineate and restrict what can be expressed, and how itshould be done, assisted by a multitude of censors-diverseinstitutions that will intervene at different stages of the artisticprocess by assenting to or denying the much neededauthorisation. (Middle East Watch, 1993)Combined with the authorities within the government, there are also non-stateorganisations that act out against free expression often with brutal force. In the eventthat the government has not intervened on work or writings where free expression isbeen exercised, or if these organisations think that the work offends Islam, thesevigilante groups intervene; their main objective is to protect society against corruptinginfluences. These groups force these restrictions by the use of force, threats, violenceand intimidation. There are two main vigilante groups at work within Iranian society;these are called the Basij and the Ansar-e Hezbollah. The Basij are paramilitaryforces, who according to human rights officials are the “organs of repression that havebecome increasingly open in crushing student protests, detaining activists, writers andjournalists in secret prisons.” (Ervand, 1999, p 124) The Ansar-e Hezbollah or ‘Partyof God’ is an ultraconservative Islamist group, whose objective is to maintain that therules of Islam are maintained within society. These groups are closely linked to theIranian government and mostly go unpunished for their actions. In 2002 an Iraniancleric spoke out against these groups stating that they are “louts and fascists, who area mixture of ignorance and madness, but whose umbilical cord is connected to thecentre of power”. (Callamard, 2006, p.8) Reading this statement these vigilantegroups are conducting censorships and punishments with force, which the governmentcannot enforce themselves without raising questions.

In June 1993, sixty Hezbollahis attacked a publishing house, a spokesperson for thegovernment body the MCIG declared “We cannot stop them, but we also do notapprove of their attitude and behaviour, but our publications should behave in a wayas to not offend the sentiments of the Hezbollahis.” (Callamard, 2006, p.8) In thisstatement we can see that the government is not against the use of threats and violencethat the Hezbollahis use. By not acting out against this violence a fear is created insociety, hence artists and writers succumb to a form of self-censorship to avoid theseaggravated assaults. This culture of self-censorship has become a major problem inIran. Artists have begun to stop dealing with certain issues in their work due to therestrictions which are forced upon them. This action stops any diversity being createdwithin a community as there are not many artists that will stand out and deal withissues that will bring them aggravation and harm from the government or theHezbollahis.The novelist Shahrnush Parsipur is one such person, she has rebelled against theauthorities for a number of years. Parsipur is one of the most acclaimed novelists inIran, she has been imprisoned, threatened, tortured and a victim to a number of attackson her publishing house and property for her short stories. Her book Women withoutMen was published in 1989 and subsequently banned by the authorities. The bookcomprises five short stories about five women who have fled from their sufferings.Parsipur writes “in a feminist, mythological terminology, she describes the culturaland religious social pressure facing women, which often leaves them with no otherresort than to go mad or commit suicide.” (Schmitz, 2005, p.95) This book was seenas an insult to the Iranian society and Islam and the Guardians and Khomeini bannedit, Parsipur was imprisoned and eventually forced into exile.In Shirin Neshat’s most recent work which she also titled Women without Men, shehas based her five video works on each of the stories in Parsipur’s novel. The first ofthese works is Mahdokht, based on the first short story in the novel. In this filmNeshat uses a three screen installation and the film shows the life of a woman calledMahdokht; Neshat “exposes the viewer simultaneously to the three temporal strata ofMahdokht’s life as it races through her mind”. We see her as a child, as a womenverging on madness trying to knit clothes for all the needy children in the country, adrifting corpse, a fallen angel and then a victim of suicide. (Stammer, 2006) By using

this novel Neshat is highlighting the works of a writer that has been forced into exileand has not received the acclaim that she deserves. As Hamid Dabashi states in hisessay Women without Headaches, "Shirin Neshat's art points to the spectacular arc ofa colourful panorama of Iranian poets and novelists hitherto unknown to the world atlarge." (2006, p.139) Neshat is bringing to life the words of a Shahrnush Parsipur whowas tortured by the Iranian authorities, she is emphasizing the struggle of oppressedwomen and the alienation they experience within society, which if allowed couldforce them to the extreme of madness or suicide. Parsipur's writings deal with manyissues that are taboo in Iran and although this stand against the censorship regime wasgreeted by repercussions of the highest degree, her work is an expression of theeffects that the fundamentalist regime has on the women of Iran and she has taken astand on the self-censorship culture that has evolved from fear in Iranian society.Self-censorship is a main element in Iranian life and arguments have been made forboth sides. One argument supporting censorship states that under such restrictions andrepression art flourishes, “Censorship forces the artist to delve deep into their creativesprings and conceive of innovative methods with which to think outside the box.”(Callamard, 2006, p.8) On the other hand there is the argument that free expression isa right and that no artist should have to tolerate such censorship and restrictions beingplaced upon them. “The nature of art is such that it cannot be dictated to; repressiononly serves to stifle creativity. Censorship strangles the very soul of a culture.”(Middle East Watch, 1993, p 71) The censorship that is placed upon these artistsmakes them resort to different methods and hidden meanings in their work to expressthere ideas and concepts. To take for example the Iranian artist Soudabeh Ardavan,she states that she is not glorifying censorship, but “ Because of all the barriers, itactually makes it better…..because you have to be clever…if you do it cleverlyenough, it’s all hidden like a code.” (Callamard, 2006, p.16)Ms. Ardavan was a victim of the strict laws that followed the revolution and wasjailed for eight years for her pro-democracy activities. She continued to producedrawings in jail and smuggle them out with visitors. She stated that depictions ofwomen in art are very difficult to get authorized, as the main censorship was imposedon animal and human forms and also on any work that may hold political ideas.Depicting women was particularly difficult to do, the law was that a women must be

depicted wearing the chador and even at this the government did not approve of artdepicting women at all. The local paramilitaries (Hezbollahis) would call to thegalleries and order that any images of women in the Chador must be taken down fromthe walls and the windows; they used threatening action to achieve this. This type ofaction forces an artist to self- censor themselves, and to avoid any other attacks fromthese groups. This type of forced action results in a society which must functionwithout free expression.The revolution brought about the re-veiling of the women of Iran. This rule insistedthat every woman must wear the chador or hejab in public. This veiling was seen asan oppression of Iranian women, but many see it as a symbol of the division thatexists in Iranian women’s lives. This contrasts between the domestic domain, inwhich the women are free to wear and act in whatever way they please, to the exteriorworld where they must control all their actions and wear the chador. The extent ofthese restrictions can be indicated by the banning of women singing in public. ShirinNeshat addresses such issues in her film installations; in her work Turbulent sheexamines the restriction of the female voice in Iran and the sex-segregation that existsin society, which is a consequence of this fundamentalist structure. This change inIranian women’s lives is portrayed by many artists, but even the artists that do notwish to refer to the mandatory veiling in their work still must, as it is against all rulesto portray a women nude or without the chador in any piece of art. Neshat addressesthe re-veiling of Iranian women in her photographic series The Women of Allah, shehighlights the veiling of Iranian women but she does not portray them as oppressedhelpless women, they are shown as rebellious powerful women. I will discuss theseworks in depth in later chapters.At the height of the Revolution in 1979, all artistic activities were brought to a stop.Activities such as art courses were terminated and universities and art galleries wereclosed, this persisted for nearly a decade. The barriers that were placed against artwere also cemented by the Iran-Iraq war which took place from 1980 to 1988. At thistime the only art that was taking place was mainly commissioned by the government,this consisted of state propaganda; artists were commissioned to make murals andposters that glorified religious devotion, depicting spiritual leaders and promotingmartyrdom and heroism. After this dark period in the art world of Iran, and after

much death and destruction a new generation of artists were born. They werefrustrated by the restrictions and oppression that they had experienced during thisdecade of war and change. Many of these artists turned to film and photography astheir form of expression, as a result of which the film world in Iran has received muchinternational acclaim. Although it has received this and has produced some fantasticpieces of work, it still has to face restrictions imposed by the government. Many ofthe films that are shown to the international audience and have received awards arenot available to Iranians. They are seen by the government as morally and religiouslyunsuitable. This smoke screen that the government presents to the rest of the world isa clever way of hiding their strict censorship regime.The censorship process that films have to undertake is a long and rigorous one. Inorder to ensure that all films follow Islamic ideals, they are put through a processwere they are often dissected and reassembled so that they are in accordance with thiscode of censorship. This censorship regime consists of four film councils who allwork under the rule of the MCIG. First the film director must submit a summary ofthe screenplay to The Council of Screenplay Inspection, and then the full script is readand the cast and crew researched by the Council for Issuing a Production Permit, thiscouncil decides if the film can be produced. Then the Council of Film Reviewingdecide whether to grant the film a permit and finally the high Council of Deputiesreview any film that has not been permitted. All these councils have the power tooppose, change or ban any films at any time.This process of control is a way for the government to obtain power over cinema andfilm. The Iranian government noticed the potential of film as a means to promote theirgovernment and the revolution. Many films have been made to entice young men tofight for their country and they have also been used to impose the virtues of Islamicdress upon women. Like the censorship regime, Iranian film is being used to enforcethe ideals of the regime upon Iranian people. Khomeini stated that “We are notopposed to cinema, to radio, or to television…The cinema is a modern invention thatought to be used for the sake of educating the people.” (Callamard, 2006, p.20)In contrast to this statement, in the first five years after the revolution the Iranian filmindustry was forced to stop. The new government associated cinema with the ruling of

the Shah and it was also seen as a Western import which was attempting to corruptyoung Iranians minds. In the years prior to the revolution, an assault was taken oncinema. One hundred and eighty cinemas were set alight, 400 spectators were killedby fire in a cinema where the doors had been locked from the outside. After theseattacks many film directors thought that film in Iran had reached its end. But as thegovernment saw the potential for its use in propaganda, many films began to beproduced by government controlled institutes. Although the censorship policy was atits strictest just after the revolution and many film directors had been put underscrutiny or banned, the film industry still continued.The film director Abhas Kiarostami who has been critically acclaimed in the Westand has been described by critics as representing the highest level of artistry in cinemais not as highly acclaimed in Iran. His films have not been shown in the country forover ten years, as they address taboo issues such as prostitution, suicide and divorce.To have films banned for addressing such themes is difficult to comprehend from aWesterners point of view, as these issues arise not only in cinema but in dailytelevision in most countries. By applying such strict censorship, one has to feel thatthe Iranian government are shielding there people from issues that arise in everydaylife, although they do not comply to Islamic values they are still very much present inthe modern world and I feel to taboo these issues is to ignore issues that are prominentin everyday society.Another director Mohsen Makhmalbaf films have endured a similar fate. One of hisfilms was banned as it portrayed adultery without condemnation. A leader from theCouncil of Guardians declared “In the name of art, a creeping movement has beenstarted which is a serious threat to the Islamic Republic, to the committed artists, andto the revolution.”(Callamard, 2006, p.19) The government released a guideline ofrules which states what can be shown in film, these guidelines are continuouslychanging and many directors have chosen not to comply with these rules. Most of theartists that reject these rules are internationally renown and do not rely on the Iraniangovernment for financial support, they also do not want to have to censor therecreativity. Jajar Panahi is one of these artists and has every one of his films banned inIran, but he justifies this by stating that,

When you make a film, you primarily want to show it in yourown country, where you made the film, but you should not beafraid of the people who try to stop or ban your film, becauseyou start to censor yourself, and then it’s another film.Sometimes self-censorship is worse than actual censorship, sowhen I make a film I don’t think about what is allowed andnot allowed. (Callamard, 2006, p.20)Recently we have seen the success of the film Persepolis directed by Marjane Satrapisand Vincent Paronnaud. Persepolis is an adaptation of Satrapis graphic novel. Thefilm is based on the life of the young Satrapis who was born in Iran; the film showsthe girls life from the age of seven to twenty three. The film displays the struggle forthis young girl growing up in Iran during the fall of the Shah, the Revolution and theestablishment of the Fundamentalist regime. The child featured in the film is calledMarji, she is the alter-ego of Satrapis, she shows the personal and political repressionexperienced while growing up in Iran. We see a rebellious child growing up in anoppressive society, which then out of fear her parents send her to Austria, hereSatrapis displays how the child is still an exile and must deal with the racism of theWest, here Satrapis “punctures the myth of the oppressed escaping to freedom andliving happily ever after.” (Davies, 2007, p58)Fig.1. Persepolis, Film Still, 2007.

Fig.2. Persepolis, Film Still, 2007.It is a simple black and white animated film, the animation allows this film to becomeuniversal, it displays the girl’s life which is shaped by struggle and displays thehypocrisy of Islamic authorities. This film does not display Iranians in an anti-Western way, but shows you the effects the anti western regime inflicts on the people,showing situations such as C.D’s of western music being dealt on street corners likedrugs, clothing labels such as Nike being frowned upon, the film is critical of allsocial and political injustice of Iran. By using animation and dark humour, Satrapisfilm is intriguing to all races and class. The film was pulled from the Bangkok Filmfestival as the Iranian government said it was a problem for them as it displayed a badimage of Iran. (Chocano, 2007, p.8) The two main points of Persepolis makes are that“strife is relative, and all politics are personal.”(Davies, 2007, p.61)Taking all of this into account, the strict censorship policies that are in effect in Iranare stifling artistic creation. These restrictions and rules are always influx; it isdifficult to determine the main elements that the government want to censor. The holdthe government has on art and the system of governance that has been established isastounding. Art in Iran is “communicated through a veil of abstraction as artistsattempt to elude the critical eye of censors.” (Callamard, 2006, p.48) This culture ofself censorship is damaging and may eventually control art without the government’s

involvement. By examining the work of Shirin Neshat we can begin to understand theextent of these restrictions that the fundamentalist regime has placed on the citizens ofIran.

Chapter Two: Repressed or PowerfulIn this chapter I want to examine her series of photographic work Women of Allah, byexamining how her imagery is perceived by the ‘West’ and if the women whom shefeatures in her work reflect repression or power, I will discuss these topics byanalyzing her use of the veil, weapons and Farsi poetry in her imagery.Neshat was born in Iran in 1957, she moved to America in 1973, where she attendedUniversity and studied fine art. When she was growing up in Iran it was under theleadership of the Shah, but after the revolution of 1979, the leader AyatollahKhomeini came into power and a strict religious fundamentalist regime was imposedin Iran. (Callamard, 2006)This had a major effect on the citizen’s public and privatelives. Khomeini’s regime aimed to bring fundamentalist values to the forefront ofsociety subsequently rejecting Western influences and arguably modernization.Neshat returned to Iran in 1990, after a twelve year absence. The Iran that sheencountered had experienced a major transformation from the one she grew up in. TheGulf war between Iran and Iraq had just ended after eight years. The male populationwas severely depleted and the landscape was now dominated by women wearing theblack chador. (Milani, 2001) The Islamic regime had taken an uncompromising effecton every aspect of the Iranian citizen’s lives. The mandatory veiling of the women ofIran had a clear effect on Neshat, who responded to this change by producing herseries of photographs The Women of Allah.The Women of Allah is a series of black and white portrait photographs of Neshatherself wearing a chador. She is mainly alone or occasionally she will have a child ora man with her. Neshat takes close ups of the body parts which are allowed to beexposed in Iran such as eyes, hands and feet. There is no background, just a blankbackdrop. In some of the photographs Neshat holds a gun or a part of the weapon isfeatured in the photograph in some way. Black Persian calligraphy is printed over thephotographs usually over the parts skin that is exposed; this calligraphy is the poetryof Iranian women poets.

Fig 3: Shirin Neshat, Untitled, 1996.In these images she raises the issues of cultural difference, displaying an image thatreflects her country of origin but while doing so, also raises the subject of the Westernperception of the East. In the essay Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after1980, McDaniel discusses how her work is perceived in the West in relation to her useof the chador.The historic Western stereotype of the exotic and erotic veiledand cloistered Muslim women also embraced the notion of arepressed woman who is too passive and fatalistic to attemptto resist her oppression and needs to be rescued by the West.This perception of the vulnerable and controlled women can be easily assumed fromNeshats imagery but this is a simplification of these images. Neshat may presenttypical stereotypes of Iranian women in the chador but she does not convey passivesubmissive women. They are powerful and rebellious. Neshat states “In a culture likeIran’s, the women have always been more abrasive, more strong, more powerful than

the men.” (Tenaglia, 2002, p.97) In the essay An Exteriority of the Inward, OctavioZaya discusses this Western perception by stating that Neshat contradicts the Westernview of the veiled women as erotic and submissive, that this distorted image is aconsequence of misrepresentations perpetuated by Western media.Neshats work by many critics has been reduced to being a representation of Iranianculture which plays upon Westerns curiosity and fear of the East. As the artist comesfrom two very divergent backgrounds, one could misread her work as coming from awestern viewpoint and being influenced by the Western media, as an immigrant shehas a very individual perspective on her homeland. In The Women of Allah sheportrays the rebellious and powerful nature of the women of her homeland. Neshatdisplays a “fine balance between loyalty towards and the confession of the roots ofher work without becoming ethnographic.”(Schmitz, 2005, p.99) Neshat’s use of thechador is more a symbol of rebellion than control, although she is dressed in thechador in the photographs it is worn as a symbol of national pride and liberation. Theother elements of these photographs support this statement as the weapons and thepoetry all reflect the power of Islamic women.The Westerners perception of Neshat’s work has altered since the 9/11 attacks. Theveiled woman is no longer seen as erotic but as threatening and dangerous.Westerners are suspicious of the veil and no longer intrigued by its mystery. “Theveiled women as an object of fantasy, excitement and desire is now replaced by thexenophobic…gaze through which the veil…is seen as a highly visible sign of adespised difference.” (McDaniel, 2005, p.153) This change of cultural perceptionenhances the power and rebellious nature which Neshat is displaying in her work. Inthe photograph Rebellious Silence which is part of The Women of Allah series, Neshatdisplays a woman in the chador holding a gun in front of her face, which is covered inFarsi calligraphy. This image represents the danger of the Iranian women, it links tothe images which were displayed during the revolution of women soldiers marchingdisplaying their guns and power. This connection to images of conflict in Iran, whichwas used by the western media, enhances the danger and power that Neshats workpresents.

emancipation from their codes. (Lileu, 2000, p6) Thus Neshat presents an element ofrebellious nature but displays this in a way that is unrecognizable to the Westernaudience. She is “giving voice to the body and body to the voice, she memorializedIranian women’s defiance” (Milani, 2001, p.7)In The Women of Allah Neshat deals with the effect of the Islamic revolution onIranian women but she does not present these women as repressed or passive. All theelements of these photographs; the chador, the weapons and the poetry emphasise thepower and strength present in Iranian women.

Chapter Three: Structures of OppressionShirin Neshat began to make video installations a few years after her Women of Allahseries. She no longer wanted to produce images that reflected political andcontroversial issues, but wanted to “make work that was more lyrical, philosophicaland poetic” (Zaya, 2005, p.21) hence she ventured into film and video. She wasinfluenced by the Iranian film director Abbas Kiarostami and with both her Iranianbackground and the Western cinema which she was exposed to in America, sheestablished a unique style. Like her Women of Allah series, her films are heavily ladenwith metaphors, they hold a lot of contrasts in relation to issues that are prominent inmodern day Iran.In this chapter I am going to analyze her trilogy of films, which consist of Turbulent(1998), Rapture (1999) and Fervor (2000). These are a series of films which deal withissues such as; the censorship which is imposed on Iranian women, gender roles,spatial constraints and sex-segregation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They examinethe “structures of oppression that define the lives of Iranian women as well as theirceaseless transgression against them” (Milani, 2001, p.8)In her film Turbulent (1998), Neshat addresses the issue of the re-veiling/ banning ofwomen’s public singing in Iran. By addressing this issue she also deals with sexsegregationand power in relation to gender roles. Turbulent is a two-channel, blackand white installation. It begins with an Iranian male singer performing a traditionallove song; he is in a theatre, facing outwards towards the viewer. His back is to anaudience which only consists of men, all dressed in white shirts and dark pants. As themale singer finishes his performance, he turns to face the audience and acknowledgetheir applause. It is at this moment that we begin to hear the soft song of a woman.This woman is shown on the opposite screen; she has been patiently waiting for theman to finish. She stands with her back to the viewer, alone in an empty theatre. Asshe continues singing she gradually turns around to face the viewer. Her song steadilybecomes a loud wailing lament, the male singer turns back around and faces theviewer, but this time his gaze is fixated on the women in the screen opposite. He ispuzzled and confused, intrigued by her song. Her song continues to get louder and

Turbulence arises. Untied to language or rules, she hums,squeals, howls, grunts, reaches for the microphone, wails andmoans. With all the powers of suppressed passion, sheconveys feelings more eloquent than any words, moreuniversal than any language. (Milani, 2001, p.8)Fig 6: Shirin Neshat, Turbulent, Still from Video Installation, 1998.The singers are complete opposites, the man represents tradition with his foreverconventional love song, while the women who is disobeying the ban on womensinging in public represents the “desire for change” (Zaya, 2005, p.21), but there isnobody to listen to her emotional, angry and distressing song. One can see the femalesinger as a symbol of the rebellious Iranian women, struggling and ever fighting thestrict Islamic regime. But is her voice heard? Is this what Neshat is showing byplacing the women in an empty theatre, that there is no one to listen to her or that noone wants to listen. As Nathalie Leleu states in the essay Shirin Neshat: The imagedisputeThe silent voice is the most important…Turbulent functionslike a double metaphor of women’s oppression and of the veryspecific nature that sex imposes on communication, in whichthe audible confronts the inaudible, the factual opposes theintuitive. (Lileu, 2000, p.9)

One would agree with this viewpoint that the woman waiting in silence and then theman listening intrigued by her singing is very important, as it symbolizes theoppression and desire for change that is within the Iranian people. Even though themen listened to the male singer’s performance they were not as intrigued as they arewhen the women began her song. Is this reaction a symbol of want, want for changeand a want to break the laws of the strict Islamic regime that controls their actions andcommunications? In his essay An Extraordinary of the Inward Octavio Zaya believesthat “Turbulent is a reflection on the tension that might help collapse the boundariesbetween those who have power and those who don’t, and on the pushes and pulls thatcontribute to the disintegration of the assumed boundaries between desire andrepression, seduction and destruction, sex and violence.”With its minimalist plot, Turbulent depicts the renewed banning on women’s publicsinging, which took place in 1979 after the revolution. The power and emotiondisplayed in the woman’s refusal to be silenced. In Iran, a woman is not onlyregulated on her physical concealment within the chador which I have discussed inthe last chapter, but also on the regulation of her own voice. If a woman is to allowherself to speak freely in public, she is seen as a “nag and a long tongued woman”(Milani, 2001, p.9). This restriction on free speech and free expression is Neshatsprimary concern in this film. But Neshat does not only deal with the censorship that isinflicted on Iranian women, but also with the issues of sex-segregation and spatialissues. She addresses this division of sexes by her use of two-channel installation.Fig 7: Shirin Neshat, Turbulent, Still from Video Installation, 1998.

For the installation of Turbulence two screens are placed on opposite sides of theroom facing each other, the viewer must position themselves in-between both screens,hence automatically becoming involved in this piece. As they cannot observe the filmin its entirety or look at both screens at any one time it causes viewer interaction. Theviewer’s movement and interaction between the screens is like the conflict andstruggle of the singers in this piece. As Neshat stated herself: “They are physicallyand emotionally in between the two sides, and because they cannot possibly see bothimages simultaneously, they must decide which side to turn too and which side tomiss, and in doing so, they become the editors of the piece.” (Dabashi, 2005, p.53)Theviewer’s performance bridges the gap between the screens. Hence Neshat’sinstallations present a space that is interactive in the viewer’s presence and in turn theviewer partakes in the action of constructing an experience.The viewer experiences the images and their “familiar iconography as a symbolicprocess-a space- that is both subjective and socially encoded.”(Vitali, 2005, p.109)The images that they are presented with are culturally coded, the division of the sexesby screen and the tension created by the gaze of the male at the female, illustrates thedemarcation of sexes in modern Iran. The restrictions on Iranian women are shown,such as the banning of public singing. ‘Turbulent’ exposes the barriers that are createdby the rules of the Islamic Republic.In her film Rapture (1999), Neshat deals with gender and its connection with space,she deals with the restraint on women’s movement and the limits of space in IslamicIran. She shows the contrasts between men and women in relation to nature andculture. Neshat once again uses a two-channel installation like she did in ‘Turbulent’;both screens are placed on opposite facing walls. On one screen we see over ahundred Iranian men all dressed in a uniformity of white shirts and black pants. Theymake their way to a fortress were they proceed undertake activities such as climbingladders, fighting, like they are preparing the fortress for attack. They are simulatingideas of activities related to men like defence, military and protecting against theenemy.On the opposite screen we see over one hundred women all dressed in the blackchador, they are in a barren desert, roaming freely, they are not restricted to any

oundaries. They pray, beat drums and chant. They make their way to the ocean,where they push a heavy boat out to the sea. Six of the women sail away on this boat.While we see the men on the opposite screen, gathered at a wall overlooking the seafrom above, they are left behind, looking at the women and waving. This is a reversalof the gender roles in Iran, as stereotypically the man are the travellers, allowed tofreely roam and travel outside the boundaries of Iran.Fig 8: Shirin Neshat, Rapture, Still from Video Installation, 1999.In this reversal of roles, Neshat examines the restrictions on women’s freedom andindividuality in Iran. After the revolution, the public domain was seen as the men’sterritory, women were subjected to restrictions and restrains of expression in public.The ideal women “maintained a closed existence, did not intrude upon or merge withthe outside world” (Milani, 2005, p.8) In Rapture Neshat places the women in a spacefree from boundaries, while the men are shown in a fortress which restrains theirmovement. The fortress symbolizes “their man-made, tradition bound society, as theyare in control of it” (Schmitz, 2005,p.96) As the women sail off into an unknownterritory, one can see this as symbolizing women’s freedom and strength to rebelagainst the harsh restrictions on their freedom to move outside the limits of male

dominated space. “Etymologically the word rapture means ecstatic delight as well astransit to a blissful place.” (Milani, 2005, p.10) Is this what Neshat is symbolizing;that the women of Iran are beginning to see the promise of travel and different lands,“travelling into the unknown to explore new forms of power and agency” (Milani,2005, p.10)Fig 9: Shirin Neshat, Rapture, Still from Video Installation, 1999.Rapture is also centrally based around the idea of contrast and opposites. She focuseson the separation of the sexes and the contrast of the space they are placed in. Thewomen are in a timeless natural environment, while the men are shown in a manmaderestricting environment. She has contrasted the men and the women in relation toculture and nature. (Schmitz, 2005) “Man is related to culture: the mind, the rationaland order. Woman is related to nature: the soul, the irrational and the primitive”(Zaya, 2005, p.22) to exaggerate these opposites Neshat uses the energy of themasses. Once again the viewer is forced to become stand between these twoopposites; they become the editor and participate with the piece. They are in themiddle “two opposites and segregated worlds with different rhythms that recogniseand ignore one another, that advance and retreat without apparent reconciliation.”(Zaya, 2005, p.21) Rapture displays the world of opposites and contrasts that exist in

Iran. It shows us the separation of the sexes, the limits on freedom of movementwithin a space and the clichés and stereotypes that exist within the Islamic republic.In the last film of the trilogy I will discuss is Fervor (2000). In this piece Neshatcontinues to examine gender issues in Iran, although this time, her work is not focusedon opposites or issues that mainly apply to women. In Fervor she deals with theunited limits of expression of men and women. She addresses the theme of sexualdesire and points towards the clash between carnal desire and social control. (Zaya,2005)Fervor is a video installation, with two screens placed side by side. It is themedaround a chance encounter between a man and a woman in a desert landscape. Thewomen is dressed in the chador, they exchange rapid glances of lust and desire. InIran men are forbidden to look at women, as they are seen as a temptation, whilewomen must limit potential eye contact by gazing downwards. This forbidden gaze isseen as a sin, a “form of visual rape.” (Milani, 2001, p.11)By applying to these rules both sexes are “erecting an invisible wall of separation,they have to clock themselves in an armour of self-detachment” (Milani, 2001, p.11)After these rapid glances are exchanged in the desert, we then see the twoprotagonists meeting by chance in a crowded public space; there seems to be a publicspeech or mass taking place. The crowd is divided in half by a curtain, men are onone-side and women are on the other. We see the man and woman are positioned onopposite sides, but they still seem to be exchanging glances; even through the curtainis blocking their view of each other. The preacher at this gathering is delivering aspeech in Iranian, he is telling of lust and desire and he warns the audience to actagainst temptation. As the speech reaches is climax, the woman exits the hall, sheseems confused, ashamed by her temptation and angry at herself. The man also exits.But ‘Fervor’ ends without the viewer seeing the two meeting again.

Fig 10: Shirin Neshat, Fervor, Still from Video Installation, 2000.In this piece Neshat shows the restrictions imposed on both men and women.Contrasting to ‘Rapture’ and ‘Turbulent’ she addresses on issue that effects bothsexes. In this installation, two screens are placed side by side creating a “mirroredeffect.” (Macdonald, 2004, p.16) By doing this she illustrates that both sexes areunder the same restrictions and effected equally by his strict policy.She once again contrasts spaces by using the desert and a man-made environment. Inthe desert the couple exchange glances, aware of the rules but allowing temptation totake hold, but in the public space they are aware of their wrong doing and areashamed, they are unable to make eye contact as the curtain blocks their view. Doesthis curtain symbolize the barrier that the Islamic policy and society imposes? “Neshatcaptures the tension between human nature and cultural codes. She contrasts thesimplicity and openness of the natural landscape where the couple initially meet andthe claustrophobic atmosphere of the public lecture.” (Tenaglia, 2002, p.7)

Shirin Neshat’s work deals with issues that are prominent in Iran today, but theimages and films that she creates display these issues in such a way that they are nowobvious to the Western viewer. She stresses particular subjects and shows these sothat the viewer can understand and draw their own conclusions from her work. Shehas established that an “artist who comes from and remains interested in the resourcesof another culture can make work that contributes to a broader culture.” (Milani,2001, p.13)

In conclusion the fundamentalist regime of the Islamic Republic and the restrictions itenforces is a very complex and structured system. The power the government holdson the citizens and artists of Iran is excessive, to force these values and religiousideals on a society and to try and censor and control their actions and in many waysthe thoughts of the people is difficult to comprehend. The division that exists betweeninterior and exterior space, between private and public spheres is astounding, thisdual-life is now rooted in the Iranian culture and will continue to exist while thefundamentalist regime has power.In the outside world women wear the chador. In the outsideworld, art, whether painting or poetry, is communicatedthrough a veil of abstraction as artists attempt to elude thecritical eye of censors. (Callamard, 2006)As I expressed in this thesis these restrictions are a lot more controlling on women,Shirin Neshat emphasises the restriction on dress and actions in her Women of Allahseries, but this work displays the restrictions but it emphasises that these women arepowerful and rebellious.***Still finishing conclusion****

Reference ListBalaghi, S. (2002) ‘Iranian Visual Arts in The Century of Machinery, Speed and theAtom’ rethinking modernity. In Balaghi, S. & Gumpert, L. (Eds). PicturingIran: Art, Society and Revolution. (pp. 21-39) London: I.B Tauris.Balaghi, S. (2002) ‘The Art of Revolution and War: The role of the graphic arts inIran’. In Balaghi, S. & Gumpert, L. (Eds). Picturing Iran: Art, Society andRevolution. (pp. 127-142)London: I.B Tauris.Callamard, A. (2006) Unveiled: Art and Censorship in Iran, Article 19: GlobalCampaign for Free expression. Retrieved October 1st, 2008, from InfotracDatabase.Collins, L. (2007) 'Voice of the Veil', New Yorker, (Vol. 83, p86-92), RetrievedJanuary 29th from Academic Search Premier Database.Dabashi, H. (2006) Women without Headaches. In Schmitz, B. & Stammer, B. (Eds).Shirin Neshat. (pp. 127-142) Berlin: Steidl.Daftari.F. (2002) ‘Another Modernism: an Iranian perspective’ In Balaghi, S. &Gumpert, L. (Ends). Picturing Iran: Art, Society and Revolution. (pp. 39-89) London: I.B Tauris.Davies. J. (2007) 'A polite Way of Being Desperate', CineAction, (Aug-Sep).Retrieved February 4th, 2009, from Academic Search Premier.Ervand, A. (1993) 'Knomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic', Berkeley,University of California.Ervand, A. (1999) 'Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in ModernIran', Berkeley, University of California.Kinser. S. (2008) 'All the Shah's Men', America, John Wiley&Sons Inc.Lileu, N. (2000). Shirin Neshat: the image dispute. Parachute, (Oct-Dec). RetrievedOctober 12 th , 2008, from Infotrac Database.

Lloyd, F. (1999). Contemporary Arab Women’s Art: Dialogues of the present.London: Women’s Art Library.Lloyd, F. (1999). 'Cross-Cultural Dialogues: Identities, Contexts and Meanings'. InLloyd, F. Contemporary Arab Women’s Art: Dialogues of the present.London: Women’s Art Library.Macdonald, S. (2004) Between two Worlds: An interview with Shirin Neshat.Feminist studies (Vol 39, p 621). Retrieved October 12th, 2008, from InfotracDatabase.McDaniel, C., Robertson, J. (2005) Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after1980, New York, Oxford University Press.Middle East Watch. (1993) 'Guardians of Thought, Limits on Freedom of Expressionin Iran', America.Milani, F. (2001)'The visual poetry of Shirin Neshat. In Tedesco, S. (Ed) ShirinNeshat. (pp 6-14) Italy: Charta.Moore. L, (2002) 'Frayed connections fraught projects', Women, (Vol.13, p1-17),Retrieved on January 29th from Academic Premier Database.Parispur, S. (2006) Women without Men. In Schmitz, B. & Stammer, B. (Eds). ShirinNeshat. (pp. 113-121) Berlin: Steidl.Ram, H. (2002). ‘Multiple Iconographies: Political posters and the IranianRevolution’ In Balaghi, S. & Gumpert, L. (Eds). Picturing Iran: Art, SocietyandRevolution. (pp. 89-103)London: I.B Tauris.Schmitz, B. (2006). 'Your true land is the place where you are going, not the placewhere you are now'. In Schmitz, B. & Stammer, B. (Eds). Shirin Neshat. (pp.95-107) Berlin: Steidl.Stammer, E. & Nichols, C. (2006). Writing with pictures. Narrative and Narrativity inthe work of Shirin Neshat. In Schmitz, B. & Stammer, B. (Eds). Shirin Neshat.(Pp.121-127) Berlin: Steidl.

Tenaglia, S. (2002) ‘The Power of the Veil- Shirin Neshat’s Iran’, World and I, p96.Retrieved on October 12 th from Infotrac Database.Vitali, V. (2006). 'Reading Mahdokht', In Schmitz, B. & Stammer, B. (Eds). ShirinNeshat. (pp. 107-113) Berlin: Steidl.Vitali, V. (2004), 'Corporate art and critical theory', Women, (Vol. 15, p1-18),Retrieved on January 29th from Academic Premier Database.Wellach, A, (2001) ‘Shirin Neshat: Islamic Counterpoints’, Art in America (Oct), p89.Retrieved on October 5 th , 2008, from Infotrac Database.Zaya, O. (2003)’Shirin Neshat, the Last Word’, Italy: Charta.