Can artistic practices still play a critical role in a society where the differences between art and advertizing have become blurred and where artists and cultural workers have become a necessary part of capitalist production? Scrutinizing the ‘new spirit of capitalism’ Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello[1] have shown how the demands for autonomy of the new movements of the 1960's had been harnessed in the development of the post-Fordist networked economy and transformed in new forms of control.

These days, almost everyone seems to agree that the times in which art tried to establish its autonomy—successfully or unsuccessfully—are over. And yet this diagnosis is made with mixed feelings. One tends to celebrate the readiness of contemporary art to transcend the traditional confines of the art system, if such a move is dictated by a will to change the dominant social and political conditions, to make the world a better place—if the move, in other words, is ethically motivated.

Shah ‘Abbas I, in a letter to the imprisoned Seal Keeper, Jalal-ed-Din Amir-Beik, unambiguously mentions a significant event of Safavid times, namely the Persians’ efforts at migrating to India.1 Although this course of events is also widely reflected in his contemporaries’ notes, and has been studied by many researchers, our knowledge in this regard is still scarce. At first glance, it may appear that the lack of direct evidence will prevent any significant headway to be made in this concern. Yet, only a small part of the texts and sources related to this subject have been investigated so far, and many relevant historic clues are yet unknown. Therefore, it appears that a wide-ranging systematic search in the texts and sources of this period can be fruitful.

The Eastern sources of Western art have long been identified. Emile Mâle, Henri Focillon and Jean Baltrusaitis have traced back the major characteristics of this influence to their origins. They have explored the meanders of this river, which has been the feeding source of European art in the Middle Ages and the fountainhead of its prosperity. Therefore, repeating it would be pointless here. Yet, how is it possible, in a collection dedicated to the investigation of the main aspects of Persian art1, to not mention, at least through a few examples, this phenomenon which has an astonishing expansion, originality and novelty?

“Art is a guide to prolific exchanges between global cultures.” This was the slogan and mission of the “Continental Shift” exhibition; one of the largest exhibitions of the new millennium. A collaborative effort by the Ludwig Forum in Aachen (Germany), the Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht (Holland), the Stadsgalerij in Heerlen (Holland) and the Museum of Modern Art in Liège (Belgium), the exhibition was held from May 21 to September 10 in the border regions of these three countries, a reflection of the cultural, historical and social exchanges and differences of border areas.

Attempting to hear the dialogues in the poetry of Sohrab Sepehri, the films of ‘Abbas Kiarostami, and the sculptures of Parviz Tanavoli is an awe-inspiring, perplexing and mysterious experience. When we focus on the concept of heech, or “nothingness,” in this three-way relationship, our wonder is intensified.

The Golestan Palace ensemble is a relic of the historic Arg (governmental seat) of Tehran, where Qajar monarchs resided, and comprises several of the most beautiful ancient buildings erected in the capital during the past 200 years1.

In the winter and spring of 1974, Christian Norberg-Schulz was guest professor of Architecture at MIT and I had the chance of taking the two courses he taught during that semester.