Hamid Keshmirshekan, Contemporary Iranian Art: New Perspectives, Second Edition (Saqi Books, 2025).
Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?
Hamid Keshmirshekan (HK): Having worked for decades on the modern and contemporary art of Iran—and the wider Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—and its relationship to discursive movements and socio-political developments, I have come to see that Euro-American paradigms cannot be uncritically applied to the study of Iranian art as though these frameworks possess universal validity. These analyses often fail to account for the local discursive contexts of artistic production, their cultural implications, and their integration into local historical narratives. This has produced unbalanced historiographies and art-historical sources that consign non-Western art to the periphery. This book emerges from that problem and continues my broader scholarship on the “decolonization” of art history, with a particular focus on the so-called Global South and the MENA region in particular. Here, I aim to challenge the authority of a single, dominant art-historical discourse and to expose how different subjectivities are reproduced within particular narratives. My objective is to establish ways of defining art-historical and temporal perception in the context of Iran.
While I draw on certain “global” art-historical paradigms, including critical theory and methodological models, much of the book’s content is grounded in primary sources, many in Persian, as well as my own field observations and interviews with artists, curators, critics, and cultural activists. Teaching the theory and history of art of Iran and the MENA region in universities in both the United Kingdom and Iran has allowed me to test and refine these arguments in dialogue with students and colleagues across contemporary art history, theory, and Islamic art and material culture. My sustained engagement with Iran’s contemporary art scene over the past few decades has also given me access to insider perspectives, prevailing concerns within the artistic community, and the ways these are reflected in artistic strategies. Together, these experiences have shaped the critical lens through which this book examines its subject.
The first edition appeared in 2013, at a time when no comprehensive study of this scope existed, despite the rapid growth of research on modern and contemporary art of the MENA region. In many respects, it entered uncharted territory, aiming to fill a significant gap in scholarship. Since then, profound changes have occurred in both the Iranian art scene and the broader social and political context, making a second edition necessary. This edition takes stock of the major transformations of the past decade, both historically and intellectually. Twelve years on, I also used the opportunity to reflect on the book’s methodological, historical, and structural dimensions and to consider how the study of contemporary art and society might be further developed. The revisions vary across chapters: some have been substantially reworked, others updated with new material, and sections where the original content remained valid have been lightly revised. A new introduction sets out these reflections and brings the work up to date.
J: What particular topics, issues and literatures does the book address?
HK: This book reframes the dynamic relationships between art, politics, social change, and cultural practices in Iran. It begins from the premise that the twentieth century marked a critical juncture in Iranian art and culture, when the legacies of tradition and modernism were reassessed and when artistic concerns became inseparable from ideological ones. Across six chapters, the book combines historical, theoretical, and conceptual analyses with case studies of artistic trends, movements, and practices, arranged under thematic sections. It situates modern and contemporary art of Iran within broader socio-political and cultural transformations from the late nineteenth century to the present. The approach is thematic rather than strictly chronological, though a general historical sequence is observed. While its main focus is on art produced within Iran, the final chapter addresses the work of Iranian artists in the West, particularly in the aftermath of the 1979 Revolution, which transformed cultural practices and gave rise to a significant diasporic art scene.
The book poses fundamental questions: What do “modern” and “contemporary” mean in a non-Western context? Are there distinctive non-Western modernisms? Can modern and contemporary art in Iran be reconfigured beyond Euro-American frameworks? What does contemporaneity signify for Iranian artists, and how have they drawn inspiration from contemporary life?
Three interrelated debates form the backbone of the analysis: modernity and its role in Iranian politics and society; nationalism, particularly its secular form; and Islamic/Shi‘i identity, including Islamic nationalism. Through close formal analyses and interrogation of key concepts, movements, and styles, the book examines how forces such as nationalism, modernism, secularism, and anti-Westernism shaped Iranian art. It also addresses the influence of state patronage and explores how artworks reflect critical historical junctures, from the Pahlavi era to the post-revolutionary period, the Reform years (1997-2005), and subsequent political shifts. Ultimately, the book aims not to provide definitive answers but to offer critical perspectives on the evolving nature of Iranian art within both its national context and the global contemporary art.
J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?
HK: This book continues my research on the modern and contemporary art of Iran and the wider Middle East and North Africa. In the new edition, I address some shortcomings of the first edition by revising historical classifications, adding case studies, and incorporating works and materials from the past decade to better frame art-historical accounts and contemporary debates. I also draw on my more recent studies, highlighting the insights they bring to understanding Iran’s socio-historical and cultural developments. The most substantial revisions appear in the last three chapters on contemporary and diasporic art, reflecting the profound changes since 2013, particularly around questions of identity, authenticity, and contemporaneity.
J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?
HK: The first edition became a key reference on the subject, attracting readers across academia, including scholars and students, as well as curators and artists. I hope the second edition will not only continue to serve these audiences but also engage new generations, fostering further scholarship, dialogue, and critical inquiry.
J: What other projects are you working on now?
HK: I am currently editing Reinterpreting History and Memory: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), based on the British Academy conference I convened in October 2024. The volume, to be published by the British Academy and submitted in January 2026, examines how artists and art activists engage with history to question authoritarian ideologies, reveal alternative narratives, and confront the traumatic events of the recent past. It explores how contemporary artistic practices challenge hegemonic narratives shaped by local and global forces, reflecting the shifting socio-cultural dynamics of the MENA region. The book investigates how history and memory are expressed through contemporary art and how these intersect with wider social, political, and intellectual currents. Contributors analyse artists who dismantle the boundaries between historical and contemporary discourses, articulating theoretical and aesthetic perspectives through reflections of self, collective memory, and the narration of history.
This interdisciplinary project seeks to establish a conceptual framework for understanding the connections between contemporary art, history, and memory in the MENA region. Rather than treating art-historical approaches in isolation, it situates them within their social, political, and psychological contexts. By engaging art historians, cultural theorists, anthropologists, literary scholars, curators, journalists, and critics, the volume brings diverse perspectives to the study of contemporary art of the MENA region.
In parallel, I am working on a research project focused on the Louvre Abu Dhabi’s collection of modern and contemporary art, which juxtaposes artists from the MENA region with other Western and non-Western figures. This curatorial strategy raises critical questions about re-contextualising regional artistic practices within global art history. The project examines how the museum fosters cross-cultural dialogue and reframes perceived binaries between “Western” and “non-Western” art. I argue that the historical exclusion of MENA art from the Western canon has often relegated it to a marginal position, viewed through hierarchical perspectives that overlook its epistemological and aesthetic contributions. Yet artists from the region have redefined modernity and contemporaneity on their own terms, selectively adapting local traditions and Western styles to forge new visual languages.
Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 5, Development of Contemporary Discourses: the Mid-1990s Onward, pages 282 to 298)
3. CONTEMPORARY TENSIONS: CULTURAL PARTICULARITY IN FLUX
This section navigates the divide between contemporary relevance and cultural distinctiveness within artistic discourse, a recurring challenge faced by Iranian artists. These artists find themselves grappling with the dual demands of embracing ‘specificity’, particularly concerning local cultural nuances, and addressing other pertinent ‘particularities’ such as social, ideological, religious and political issues. The latter aspect underscores the phenomenon of regionalising art, or its classification within specific local contexts, a dilemma that inherently suggests the necessity of adopting strategies of resistance against the perceived homogenising effects of globalisation. However, such resistance carries the risk of misinterpretation or co-option by commercial or political forces. Central to this discourse are fundamental questions: Can artists effectively advocate for local and specific cultural differences within the constraints of this seemingly irresolvable dilemma? How can locally rooted artistic languages evolve to engage with broader, globalised artistic discourse? Moreover, what impacts do hegemonic artistic languages have on artists whose primary language differs from these dominant discourses? Therefore, it becomes imperative to address the complexities of identity politics, including its intersection with the cultural strategies of the state, external expectations regarding predefined identities, and the aesthetic responses of artists to these external pressures.
Contemporary Iranian artists’ beliefs about social relations and cultural essentialism have found tangible expression in their artwork through the employment of creative strategies. This is an issue in particular for artists and art activists concerned with rethinking notions of embodiment and performativity, in tension with the Iranian political context. It is in the course of unfolding new dialectics of global culture in contemporary Iran that the artists attempt to produce or transfer different subject positions in their art.
In contemporary Iranian cultural life, including artistic activities, one can discern the continual presence of the state and its role in standardising the conventional paradigms in all cultural and artistic dispositions. Shireen Hunter convincingly posits that alongside efforts to Islamicise Iran’s cultural life, the state actively attempted to imbue it with a revolutionary ethos. Undoubtedly, a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic’s cultural doctrine has been the insistence that art must serve Islam and the Revolution. In other words, artistic expressions were deemed valuable only insofar as they contributed to the objectives of the Revolution, which included fostering an Islamic and revolutionary fervour among the populace.
The state has sought to construct a definition of an ‘authentic’ identity, portraying itself as a unified entity. This centralised, monopolistic, and ideological stance adopted by the post-revolutionary state necessitates that any alternative response be inherently ‘political-cultural’ in nature. Consequently, the Islamic Republic, assuming a hegemonic role in state governance, has placed significant emphasis on cultural transformation and the institutionalisation of an Islamic political culture. Central to this effort is the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, which exercises comprehensive control over cultural production. Operating within the framework of the state’s ideologically structured principles, the Ministry has instituted regulations governing various artistic expressions, including exhibitions, films, music, and other forms of artistic expressions. According to the state, ideology is employed to remedy social, psychological, and cultural maladjustments, such as moral and political strains. But, as Ramin Jahanbegloo maintains, the very notion of ‘ideology’ gradually lost much of its coherence in the later years among the new generation of Iranian intellectuals and art activists. This accompanied the crisis of political legitimacy in Iran. Thus, it is not surprising that for the majority of artists of the new generation, this formulation of culture does not seem, in the current phase in an increasingly globalised world, to be any longer plausible. One then witnesses an artistic and intellectual reaction against these stereotypes. Jahanbegloo further argues, ‘[T]oday, a democratic notion of identity, emphasizing the formation of a pluralistic civil society in Iran, is more welcomed among the new generation of Iranian elites than romantic or traditionalist notions of Iranian identity.’
However, through the institutionalisation of a cultural collective identity, the state is still attempting to formulate these identities. The definitions of collective identities are essentially ideological constructs, imposed from above and used to divide and control populations. Both political and cultural critics argue that efforts should be directed towards eliminating the imposition of identity in everyday life rather than institutionalising it. It is now recognised that the uncertainties surrounding collective identity reveal more about the processes and power dynamics involved in identity constructions than the apparent certainties do; these uncertainties underscore the socially constructed nature of collective identities rather than their essentialist character. This realisation is increasingly evident in Iranian cultural life, where artists are actively challenging essentialist political dictates while reclaiming their cultural spaces and asserting self-defined identities. Their fundamental belief aligns with the theory, asserting that identity is commonly perceived as experienced and envisioned in ways that challenge its association with a specific geographic locale.
We may concur with Vikki Bell, who posits that one does not inherently or ontologically ‘belong’ to the world or to any specific group within it. She suggests that belonging is instead an accomplishment that operates on multiple levels of abstraction. In this context, it is crucial to emphasise the significance of performative processes in shaping experience and identity, including elaboration, and construction.
This concept of performativity has prompted many Iranian cultural activists and artists to deeply consider the formative moments and methods of identity. Regarding identity as performative implies that identities are shaped by the very actions and expressions that are considered their outcomes. Therefore, identity transcends mere definition of an individual or a larger group, but rather emphasises the subjective experiences, particularly experiences of oppression, and the potential for a collectively imagined alternative – an alternative that may not necessarily align with the framework imposed by the state.
These meanings of identity are clearly in contrast with those of the Iranian state. The emphasis on being or becoming, rather than the framed fixity of identity, is the main challenge here, along with the subject position of identity and construction rather than institutionalisation. One can detect the new interpretations of national culture and counter-narratives of the state’s hegemonic narrative, particularly in artistic strategies and representations in Iran.
The formulated interests of the state clearly promote particular values as a resistance against the secular cultural norms of cultural globalisation, or, as the authorities put it, ‘Westernisation’. This general cultural attitude explains why it has been perfectly clear in official cultural and artistic events that encouragement is given to taking refuge in clichés of cultural authenticity, historical specificities and traditional ‘values’, particularly Islamic or the so-called Irano–Islamic Shi‘i traditions. Any other kinds of approach would formally be sentenced to marginalisation. However, it is said that the sense of being marginalised or threatened, through which identity-based political positions consolidate themselves, naturally pulls the subject in contrary directions. An identity-based political position that is consolidated through marginalisation pits itself against the dominant establishment wherein marginalisation occurs. As cultural historian Suman Gupta contends, ‘working against marginalization is an emancipatory step, equivalent to striving for an egalitarian prospect.’ Therefore, artists who oppose the state’s prioritisation typically advocate for their own cultural spaces and alternatives. They often convey meanings, especially through representations of the human body as a cultural medium in their artistic expression, which imbues their work with ideological and political significance within an Iranian context. Consequently, addressing social problems and issues critically becomes a method for artists to campaign against the state’s ideological objectives. These artists have embraced fluid identities and self-definitions, which take centre stage while hegemonic identities fade into the background. Unlike their modernist predecessors, it seems they are less inclined to approach the question of identity through a ‘self-other’ binary opposition, as the concept of the ‘other’ is no longer perceived as homogeneous.
This notion is exemplified in the artist’s use of his or her body. The body holds fundamental significance, serving as a central site of interaction between the Self and the world. Through self-representation, many artists use their bodies as a means of challenging cultural constraints, political impositions, and entrenched stereotypes. In this sense, the body serves as a locus where artists and interpreters interact, engaging in processes of meaning-making together. This interaction extends to various forms of two-dimensional artwork, including paintings, photographs, graphic works, and frequently, performances. It becomes evident that challenging representations occurs through the body, and the artists’ attempts to reclaim cultural space begin to manifest…