by Hadi Seyf’s article, titled: “Master Jalil Ziapour Took the Leadership of the Group of Innovators”, Rastakhiz Special Issue, No. 739 – 11 October 1977
Hadi Seyf – writer, director, presenter, and prominent researcher of traditional Iranian arts
Jalil Ziapour’s introduction to Hadi Seyf’s article:
“Some of the intellectuals of our society, free from malice and ulterior motives, who cooperated with the media and who, in my view, did not know the chaotic conditions of Eastern and Western societies, nor the reactions, perceptions, and modes of artistic confrontation through the technical practice of art itself, would at times sincerely (like us) make sharp protests that were justified. For until the grounds for discussion and criticism (especially through the media) are provided, the state of perceptions does not achieve public clarity. These people, who had themselves suffered the pain of a lack of culture and identity, regarded enlightenment as the remedy, and in this respect, we wholeheartedly accepted them (I sincerely shake the hands of these spokespersons who loathe the lack of identity, and I thank all the media officials who cooperated in creating an atmosphere of discussion and criticism). All of these unbiased and well-intentioned spokespersons of our society of yesterday are today among the enlightened ones familiar with art, and perhaps many artistic matters still hold room for much discussion for them. It was they who, in any case, opened up the space of art and, as far as possible, undertook its refinement. ‘Hadi Seyf’ and ‘Foad Farouqi’ and my other friends, like me, answered me in kind with the whip of sincerity, and at that time, under the impression that we were the spokespersons of foreign art (which, of course, the opponents had fabricated as such) and that we paid heed to the art of foreigners and Picassos, they cried out: ‘Why did Picasso not pay heed to Eastern art?’ “
“Hadi Seyf”, this inquisitive and affectionate friend of ours, did not let me go until he raised the remaining questions in the year 1989 in the quarterly journal “Honar”, No. 17, and received an answer; he wrote:
“Innovative Iranian painters strove to put into practice the new experiences of Western schools of painting in harmony with the traditional cultural needs of our land. In the meantime, Jalil Ziapour took up the leadership of the group of innovators by presenting the experiences of Cubism, which, at the beginning of its emergence in Iran, seemed profoundly alien.
Jalil Ziapour, after a few years of residence in France and the many teachings he had learned on this path, brought this new style to Iran like an incongruous commodity, without thinking of the past and present intellectual and cultural needs of Iran.
Ziapour’s early works are regarded as a conscious deception in art, and a kind of obstinacy toward traditional art, under the title of dusting off the face of the values of this art.
Bringing forward the controversial style of Cubism, as a pursuit of novelty, was because this style, in one respect, was geometric in the form of traditional designs (such as carpet, tile, and fabric patterns), and in another respect, displayed thoughts and had a path toward inward representation. In fact, this style still carried with it broken and fragmented forms from nature, and was also indifferent to pure nature; moreover, it seemed close and familiar to the artistic elements existing among our people.
Despite all of Ziapour’s stubbornness, we saw through experience that Cubism, with all its rich and meaningful content, never became compatible in Iran with the cultural background of society, and most reactions ended in the crowd laughing at these works. The only innovation that Cubism left behind in Iran was the beginning of a new chapter named the separation between the artist’s world and society. This achievement grew to the point that the spectator was left bewildered.”
