[Studi Ilmiah]: Image, Text, and Form : Complexities of Aesthetics in an American Masjid

By: Dr. ‘Akel Isma‘il Kahera

The Debate

The aesthetic features of the American masjid can be codified under the rubrics of image, text, and form.[1] These three features suggest an anachronistic language corresponding to the use of ornament, inscription, and architectural form. The occurrence of image, text, and form, therefore, prompts an inquiry that must address two pivotal thematic assumptions:

1. The primacy of prayer (salat) is a necessary criterion in determining the characteristics of a liturgical space suited for the American environment.[2]

2. The embellishment of a space for salat is a contingent matter. Although ornament, inscription, and architectural form have been nuanced as an integral aspect of the aesthetic language of a masjid, these features are essentially independent of any ritual demands.

Both assumptions provide the scope to study the aesthetic language of the American masjid apropos of the complexities of ornament, inscription, and architectural form. But we encounter, with regard to the second assumption, a recurring use of an extant aesthetic precedent. In the history of Muslim architecture, we come upon instances in which the aesthetic features of an extant masjid has influenced a succeeding structure. There are exceptions to the foregoing premise, and the question of the degree to which an extant masjid can be considered in the classification of the American masjid is further complicated by the absence of documented history.[3] In addition, the features of the American masjid appear to be directly related to the phenomenon of a Muslim Diaspora. When building a masjid, the Diaspora community ascribes emotional value to the utilization of a well-known convention or an influencing custom from the Muslim world. The history of Muslim architecture is, therefore, a key consideration for an architect who aims to gratify a Muslim client. There are problems with the indiscriminate use of a well-known convention or an influencing custom. In attempting to replicate extant features from the past, the architect invariably produces a de facto facsimile whose aesthetics are severely compromised. For example, truckers were overheard commenting on their short wave radios as they drove past the masjid in Toledo, Ohio, which was under construction at the time. One trucker, responding to his friend who had asked him about the structure of the masjid, remarked that “it must be a new Mexican restaurant or something!”[4]

We may forgive the naïveté of the trucker inasmuch as he is not expected to recognize the appearance of a masjid. His comment, however, reinforces the following point: In our inquiry, the aesthetic features of an American masjid must be thoughtfully examined with respect to the idiosyncratic usage of image, text, and form. In the discourse that follows, these features will be examined, with particular attention given to the idiosyncratic treatment and the usage of image, text, and form.

The first debate examines the heterogeneous use of image. In the American masjid, image is appropriated in an anachronistic manner; it is used as a display of ornament without regard to time or context. Image is essentially concerned with satisfying an “emotional” condition that has historical efficacy to the immigrant Muslim community. The appropriation of a familiar image vividly evokes a mental picture or an apparition that closely resembles an extant form, object, or likeness emanating from the past.[5]

The second debate examines the appropriation of form. Architects have re-interpreted multiple geometric forms and spatial elements found in various extant models and decorative conventions. The intent is to produce a new aesthetic language that will be appropriate to the American environment. Inasmuch as the interpretation of form falls under the purview of the architect, the divergent ways in which architects have interpreted the architectural features of an extant model or decorative convention make an intriguing study. It should be noted that the attributes of form are distinct from those associated with image. Unlike image, form is concerned with the “ordering” of a design program for a masjid, and the production of a ‘coherent’ site condition. The interpretation of form is further complicated by the nuances of American architectural practice. For instance, architectural pedagogy considers form to be the shape, structure, and pattern of an object or the “secular” mode in which an object exists, acts, and manifests itself by derivation and by composition.[6]

The third debate examines the use of epigraphy; it concerns the treatment of textual inscriptions in a masjid. Because textual inscriptions have customarily been sanctioned in religious buildings in the Muslim world, it is an aesthetic convention that appeals to the Diaspora community as well. The use of epigraphy is further complicated by the fact that the linguistic makeup of the American congregation is very different; most American Muslims are non-Arabic speaking. Hence, the utilization of Arabic inscriptions in an American masjid raises several issues: Is the purpose of a pious inscription simply to evoke a “symbolic charge”—a term I borrow from Professor Oleg Grabar—or is it intended to be decorative, and a means to enhance the image of a structure or merely to adorn a wall?. Who reads the text of the inscription? Would a masjid with a pious inscription be more “reverent” than a masjid lacking an inscription? These issues are all equally provocative and deserve further discussion, for they are relevant to the ensuing discourse. I will return to them.

An overriding debate deals with the production of an image. Within a climate of uncommon architectural language, where extremes of architectural diversity exist, the meaning of an image can only be fostered only through use of one or more aspects of a “known” architectural convention. Since the immigrant community views Muslim “religious” architecture to be clearly more homogeneous than Western architecture, the use of a “known” architectural convention takes precedent. I would, however, hasten to add that the study of art and architecture anywhere, or indigenous to any culture, is cognizant of internal variations and aesthetic complexities.[7]

By reanimating an image from the past, the first generation of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, have held firmly to the production of a recognizable religious image.[8] The utilization of a “religious image” gives outward expression and meaning to the presence of an Islamic practice in North America.[9] A recognizable image imparts, beyond the aspect of a place for communal worship, identity, and also produces an emotional charge. Emotions and sentiments are, therefore, evoked through the agency of memory; despite geographical, historical, and chronological nuances, the features of an extant image, when reanimated, become a common aesthetic ethos and is happily embraced by the community.[10] By recalling an image from the past, one no longer remains in an alien environment, but becomes part of an environment where belief and emotions are nourished by familiar aesthetic themes.
... [more]