Aurangzeb and Later Mughal Architecture and Art

Aurangzeb and Later Mughal Architecture

During Aurangzeb's reign (r. 1658 - 1707), brick and rubble with stucco ornamentation replaced squared stone and marble as the building materials of choice. 

Aurangzeb was responsible for additions to the Lahore Fort and also built one of the thirteen gates, which was named for him, and the Badshahi mosque, a structure constructed from brick with red sandstone facades.

 In general, however, Mughal architecture had begun to decline during Aurangzeb's reign, a process that would accelerate after his death.

Art and Architecture in Shah Jahan Reign

Architecture under Shah Jahan

The vision of Shah Jahan (r. 1628 - 1658) introduced a delicate elegance and detail to Mughal architecture, illustrated in the Jama Masjid in Delhi, the Moti Masjid situated within the Agra Fort, and the Sheesh Mahal in the Lahore Fort, which makes spectacular use of pietra dura and complex mirror work. His most famous achievement, however, is indisputably the Taj Mahal.

Located in Agra, India, the Taj Mahal is a white marble mausoleum built between 1632 and 1648 by Shah Jahan in memory of his third wife, Mumtaz Mahal. Constructed by twenty thousand men, it represents the Islamic garden of paradise, and is widely regarded as Mughal architecture's greatest achievement.

The mausoleum rests in the middle of a large square plinth and has four almost identical facades, each with a large arch-shaped doorway. It is topped by a large double dome and a finial, combining both the traditional Islamic motif of the crescent moon and the Hindu symbol of the trident, associated with the god Shiva. The central dome is adorned with a lotus design and is surrounded by four smaller chhatris, each of which also has the same lotus motif. Four tall minarets extend from the corners of the plinth.

The exterior decorations of the Taj Mahal include calligraphy, abstract forms, verses from the Koran, and vegetable motifs, executed in paint, stucco, carvings, and pietra dura work. The interior decorations also feature inlay work featuring precious and semi-precious gemstones. Muslim tradition forbids elaborate decoration of graves and the bodies of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal are interred in a plain crypt underneath the mausoleum. However, the inner tomb features two cenotaphs or false tombs that are richly decorated with inlays of semi-precious stones forming vines and flowers and surrounded by jali screens.

Art and Architecture in Jahangir Reign

Architecture under Jahangir

Under Jahangir (r. 1605 - 1627), Mughal architecture became more Persian than Indian. 

His great mosque at Lahore is a great example of the Persian style and is covered with enameled tiles. 

At Agra, the tomb of Itmad-ud-Daula, completed in 1628, was built entirely of white marble and decorated in elaborate pietra duramosaic.

Art and Architecture under Akbar Reign

Mughal architecture first developed and flourished during the reign of Akbar the Great (r. 1556 - 1605), who commissioned palaces, mosques, gardens and mausoleums. The architecture was a synthesis of Persian, Turkic, Timurid Iranian, Central Asian, and Indian Hindu and Muslim styles.

Akbari architecture is also remarkable for its large-scale use of sandstone, evident both in the construction of Fatehpur Sikri, Akbar's royal city, and Akbar's own tomb in Sikandra. The mosque at Fatehpur Sikri boasts the Buland Darwaza, the largest gateway of its kind in India. Early Mughal mosques had massive enclosed courtyards and domed shallow prayer halls.

One of the most stellar accomplishments of Mughal architecture under Akbar is the tomb of his father Humayun, situated in Delhi, India. Commissioned by Humayun's wife Hamida Banu Begum in 1562, and designed by a Persian architect, Humayun's Tomb is the first garden-tomb on the Indian subcontinent and first structure to use red sandstone on such a large scale. It is also the first Indian building to use the Persian double dome, with an outer layer supporting a white marble exterior - a material not seen in earlier Mughal architecture - and the inner layer giving shape to the cavernous interior volume. The use of indigenous Rajasthan decorative elements is particularly striking, including the small canopies or chhatris surrounding the central dome. It boasts the use of the pietra dura technique, with marble and even stone inlay ornamentation in geometrical and arabesque patterns on the facade of the mausoleum, and jail or latticed stone carving decoration. This style of decorative facade was an important addition to Mughal architecture and flourished in later Mughal mausoleum, including the Taj Mahal..

Genre Art a Art Type

Art that has a subject matter that concerns with everyday life, domestic scenes, sentimental family Relationships, etc.

Genre typically immediately followed by the word "painting” is most frequently used in art to mean "a scene of everyday life." A genre painting has a person (or people) in it doing something. Not a great big important something, either. Your basic genre painting subject is bound to be plucking a chicken, lighting a pipe, delousing a child's head or some other equally unglamorous activity.

"Focus in on the genre you want to write, and read books in that genre. A lot of books by a variety of authors. And read with questions in your mind."

(Nicholas Sparks, "How to Learn the Craft," 2002)

"[F]ar from being merely 'stylistic' devices, genres create effects of reality and truth, authority and plausibility, which are central to the different ways the world is understood in the writing of history or of philosophy or of science, or in painting, or in everyday talk. These effects are not, however, fixed and stable, since texts--even the simplest and most formulaic--do not 'belong' to genres but are, rather, uses of them; they prefer not to 'a' genre but to a field or economy of genres, and their complexity derives from the complexity of that relation."

(John Frow, Genre. Taylor & Francis, 2006)

"Traditionally, the study of literature has been centered on analysis and interpretation in three genres--poetry, fiction, and drama; the study of creative writing has also focused on those genres; and composition has become the domain of nonfiction. We believe that this unnatural separation can be bridged by acknowledging creative nonfiction as the fourth genre. That is, we think of creative nonfiction simultaneously as a form of literature, as a goal of creative writing, and as the aesthetic impulse in composition."

(Robert L. Root, Jr., and Michael Steinberg, the Fourth Genre: Contemporary Writers of/on Creative Nonfiction. Allyn and Bacon, 1999)

"Genre, as many students of the subject have observed, functions much like a code of behavior established between the author and his reader. When we agree to attend a formal dinner, we tacitly accept the assumption that we will don the appropriate attire; the host in turn feels an obligation to serve a fairly elaborate meal and to accompany it with wine rather than, say, offering pizza and beer. Similarly, when we begin to read a detective novel, we agree to a willing suspension of disbelief."

(Heather Dubrow, Genre. Taylor & Francis, 1982)

The Difference between Genre and Style

"These two terms--genre and style--are often loosely used, and perhaps they are not susceptible to any complete clarification, but for our purposes it will be useful to make at least a rudimentary distinction between them. Genre refers to things regularly done and style to a regular way of doing things. In painting, landscape is a genre and impressionism is a style. Genres are social and durable; they persist through changes of style. A style is more local, often personal, as when we speak of Shakespearean comedy as opposed to Jonsonian comedy or Monet's impressionism as opposed to Renoir's. Both genres and styles, however, manifest themselves in recurrent patterns or codes that can be constructed by analyzing a set of individual texts."

(Robert Scholes, Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English. Yale University Press, 1985)

"I mean, whatever you think about the whole superhero movie genre, at least it's getting people to read the original source material."

Landscape Art a Art Type

A picture of natural outdoor scenery, such as mountains, rivers, fields, or forests.

Landscapes are works of art that feature scenes of nature: mountains, lakes, gardens, rivers, etc. They can be oil paintings, watercolors, gauche, pastels, or prints of any kind.

Derived from the Dutch word landschap, landscape can also refer to:

City-scapes - views of an urban setting

Seascapes - views of the ocean

Waters-capes - views primarily featuring fresh water (think of Monet on the Seine)

"Landscape format" refers to a picture plane that has a width which is greater than its height.

Landscape painting ranked fourth in the hierarchy of genres set up by the Academy. History painting, portraiture, and genre painting were considered more important. Still life was considered less important.

Non Objective a Art Type

Art which the visual signs are entirely imaginative and not from anything seen by the artist.
No recognizable subject.

Can art be of importance without meaning? Must “good” art convey the zeitgeist of the times in which it was created?

Does “depth of meaning” correlate directly to “goodness” of art?

A definition of terms here would be of value but the terms in question are so based on individual and subjective opinion that the definitions would also be questioned.

Abstract painting, particularly the nonobjective painting of many artists since the 1940s is arguably devoid of meaning.  In fact many artists want it that way. They prefer to see purely compositional factors, the tenets of design as the measure of their works. Does this relegate them to the level of design, not truly “high art”?

Abstract paintings can do two things.
 1) They can ascend to the highest level of design, and 
2) they may transcend it to

“high art.” Just as Kurt Schwitters paper snips transcend the craft of hobbyists cutting paper, and Joseph Cornell’s boxes transcend the craft of cabinet makers or box designers – so can abstract paintings transcend design.

The criterion of the word “meaning” needs some discussion in my opinion.  The “meanings” that some narrow-sighted critics refer to as being the paramount criterion of “high art” usually revolve around historic, philosophic, and religious dimensions. These meanings purportedly reflect the highest ideals and aspirations of man and God.

I appreciate meanings as much as the next person. I like the classical, epic struggles of mythology, the ancient renditions of the history of the world, the religious icons of every century, the struggles of mankind and every individual in mankind. These  all contain wonderful meanings and certainly worthy of artistic depiction.

Now consider the meaning of a man or woman who struggles to create pure beauty, the artist. The artist who wants to create not only “high art” but does so without the tools of religious thought, without the maps of cultural revolutions, without the applause of an informed and socially motivated political movement, without the traditions of a craftsmens guild. Consider this courageous individual who creates original works.

These individuals not only attempt real, although only mortal, creation at its highest level – they do so in a unique and hardwon individual style. In addition, their work is meant to free, and amplify your perception of art and beauty in all of its mysterious manifestations.

That “is” meaning. You can witness this meaning in its record of each abstract painting. No, not every painting is a masterpiece of design – and these works can’t fall back on a cliche’ or a social nomenclature to gain acceptance. This kind of work stands as a testament to a real struggle to push something to the highest level of art with no help from all the other “manifold meaning packages” that were the reason for art in previous centuries.

Religious Theme a Art Type

Art which the subject is of religious matter.

What do we mean by the word religion? It comes from an ancient Latin word that means simply "to tie things together." Religion is the human quest for coherence and meaning in the understanding of the world. When the most primitive cultures first sought to see some connection between birth and death and the seasons of the year, they were constructing a religious view. When various forms of idolatry became part of their effort to influence the world, they were merely trying to tie all things together, to make sense out of a world that often proved hostile to human feelings. Religion is the generic word for Christianity. It is not synonymous with Christianity. Christianity is a form of religion, although to many of us it is the highest form. Religion is whatever posture is taken toward the world and its events and power that seek to tie all things together into a coherent and experiential whole.

Now it is easy to see where all the trouble in the definition of the term religious art arises. According to the above argument, art does not have to have biblical subject matter to be "religious." Any felt passion or insight about the world, expressed with power, ought to be considered religious art. In fact, we know that in earlier cultures, religion and art was almost the same thing. The religious buildings, icons, and music of a culture are art; and its art is its religion.

"Art" is the process of expressing in concrete form or event human emotions and aspirations, ranging from the simple joys of being to complex philosophical expression. A work of art is a concrete thing, an event that helps the participant to bridge his experience with that of the artist or the group or the religious values expressed therein. If one accepts this definition, there is no such thing as "art"; there are only the things we make to tell our stories as human beings with religious purposes. Sister Corita Kent, the famous pop artist, once said in a poster, "We have no art here. We only do the best we can."

Somewhere we received the idea that art must be pretty or polished or symmetrical or restful. It may express those possibilities. But, if our definition is correct, it must also at times be ugly, rough, asymmetrical, and jarring. Why? Because men and women sense their world that way some of the time maybe most of the time.

Self Portrait a Art Type

      A painting, drawing, or sculpture or other work of art showing the artist himself.










             Self-portraits have been a method of self-exploration since humans first gazed at their own reflection in a pool of water. With the invention of the mirror came an even stronger fascination to capture one's likeness. And even within the past ten years, the public's fascination with the way an artist sees him/herself has led to exhibitions like the National Self-Portrait Collection in the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery.


            Self-portraits, we have found, can be carefully staged to show the audience only what the artist wishes to project, or deeply revealing, inadvertently displaying feelings of anguish and pain. Self-portraits have been used to test new techniques, make a signature mark, launch into self-study, remember the past, and as a way to release emotion. Whichever way artists choose to construct their images, they are each forced to study their own personas both physically and emotionally.

                  What do artist's find when they search the mirror? For some the self-portrait is cathartic experience, a letting go of pent-up emotions. For others, the process reveals new insights about themselves and their work. For all artists, the self-portrait is an exploration, an opportunity to see beyond the image in the mirror and begin to search into the soul.

Still Life A Art Type.

A drawing or painting of an arrangement of non moving, nonliving objects , such as fruit, flowers, or bottles.
Usually, a still life is set indoors and contains at least one man-made object, such as a bowl or vase.

Over the centuries artists have chosen the subject of still life for a variety of reasons: to reflect the status of their owner, be it humble or haughty; for their symbolic meaning which reveals a hidden story or idea; to capture the natural beauty of transient object like a flower or fruit; to demonstrate the artist's skilled painting technique; or as a controlled structure to express the abstract qualities of the visual elements.

Traditionally, still life is the drawing and painting of items such as fruit, flowers and household objects, which are usually arranged on a table top.

Willem Kalf painted still life which reflected the opulent lifestyle and status of their owner.

Chardin showed us that there is great beauty in the humble household objects that surround us.

Henri Matisse intensified our experience of fruit, flowers and exotic artifacts with his expressive use of color.

Juan Gris used still life to experiment with the way we perceive objects in space and time.

Still life as a subject has provided a platform for artists of different eras to explore their relationship with the world of objects that surround us.

As our world evolves, new products, artifacts and modern media will continue to suggest new avenues for the stylistic development and reinvention of still life as a subject in art.

Origin Of Art

The origin of art was certainly the mimicking of nature. The question was how.

Even if it tried to be faithful it was distorted, necessarily. For one thing, the artist’s feelings ran away with him. For another, he had to adapt what he wanted to do to what he could do; that is, he had to draw or carve or paint on something ( a wall, a tree, a horn) and it had to look both understandable or recognizable and appealing.

There were limitations everywhere. His “pen” was a crooked stick of charcoal. His colors, which were only dirt scraped out of the ground, weren't like the beautiful colors he wanted to imitate. His white would never be as bright as the sparkle of sunlight on the water. He drew the profile of a bison with a black line of charcoal because that made it recognizable; though he knew there was no black line around any bison. He loved the bushy look of the bisons’ black locks but he couldn't find a way to paint them. He wanted to paint them in such a way that whoever saw his drawn bison would feel the same way he felt about them—that is, how soft and dusty they were. But he couldn't do that—he didn't know how.

Why did he want to draw in the first place? Because he felt something. He saw things that made him afraid or curious or happy and he tried to record them, to save them. Originally he drew for himself: his pictures were not always intelligible to other people. But sometimes someone recognized his drawn bison and smiled. The picture was a success!

Or it might be that back in those Neolithic times the bison was half-divine and any picture of it got an instant reaction of awe or fear. Maybe it was used in magic. For that, a simple figure, however crude, would have been good enough. Maybe superstition stood in the way of art’s progress; at least as far as bison were concerned and the artist had to draw other, less emotionally charged subjects. He will anyway have wanted to turn away from convention. Artists always want to make their own discoveries. Each man was different. Some wanted to paint what made them afraid, somewhat made them love. Some were after a laugh with their drawing; some tried, perhaps with the likeness of a dear relative, to bring him back to life. Some were curious about the look of everything.

The drawing always began in their minds, where the memory of the object was stored. They tried to draw it and, when they had a doubt, went to look at the “real thing”. How was the neck connected to the shoulder really? Was the horn round or elliptical? Just how large were the eyes in fact? (They seemed enormous.) It was very hard to study a live animal because it moved all the time and you couldn’t get too close. But you could check details on a dead one. You could make complete pictures of dead animals—studies, call them. The trouble with those studies was that they looked dead and, as your intention was to show a live animal, they were good only for reference. You wanted your own bison to look threatening, say, or arrogant.

Until people had seen paintings by other artists, they probably weren't very critical of them. But in time they began to compare a drawing with what it represented. “Your bison looks like a rabbit,” someone finally said.
“If you know so much about it, then here, take my brush, and paint a better one,” said the offended artist.

People looked for only one thing in the work: how closely it resembled the “real thing”. A bison had little eyes and a big head and a short little nervous tail. It had fine, cloven hooves, and so on. Did the painter show all that and show it right? Few ever criticized HOW he showed it—that seemed to be a technician’s or a specialist’s problem. The average viewer of paintings rarely thought about it. Matters of style, of color, of perspective, of focus, of background surely influenced his judgment of the picture; but his one conscious concern was likeness. Did the bison in the picture look like a real bison?

He was sometimes surprised to see that the artist wanted to talk about other things; that he seemed to be worried more about color combinations and backgrounds and light. He didn't even want to comment on the bison’s realism. It clearly was of secondary importance to him!

To make him feel better, the viewer said: “I don’t know why you’re unhappy with this painting. To me that is a darned good bison.”
But the painter wasn't cheered. And later the viewer heard that he had blacked it over with charcoal.
In fact, a mere likeness wasn't good enough for him. He wasn't happy until his drawing looked appealing in a way he hadn't even a name for and the secret of which no one has ever understood. We say “beautiful”.

Books talk about schools and periods; but the history of painting is about the achievements of individuals. Each one did his own thing. Why he did so was a mystery even to himself. Genius does what it must. what and the how were the great problems of his life; and each man through hard work and long hours discovered some new way to paint a picture. Their aim wasn't always the same; but if it was great art they painted, looking at it made you reflective. It taught while it delighted.

What is Art?

There are several ways you could go on this, but my suspicion is that one will get you better results than the others.

I could tell you that art plays a large part in making our lives infinitely rich. Imagine, just for a minute, a world without art! (You may think "So what?" but please consider the impact that lack of graphics would have on your favorite video game.) Art stimulates different parts of our brains to make us laugh or incite us to riot, with a whole gamut of emotions in between. Art gives us a way to be creative and express ourselves. For some people, art is the entire reason they get out of bed in the morning. You could say "Art is something that makes us more thoughtful and well-rounded humans."

On the other hand, art is such a large part of our everyday lives that we may hardly even stop to think about it. Look at the desk or table where you are, right this minute. Someone designed that. It is art. Your shoes are art. Your coffee cup is art. All functional design, well done, is art. So, you could say "Art is something that is both functional and (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing to our eyes."

You might say "Art is in a constant state of change, so nobody can really pin down what it is." The constant change part is true, but the not pinning it down part is going to get you a bad grade. It may even raise a comment or two about your being some sort of wisenheimer. Don't go this route.

You might even say "Art is subjective, and means something different to every single person on earth." This, too, is the truth. I would caution against this approach, however, as it would require a stack of paper from here to the moon to cite all of your 6.8 billion references.