Private Heterotopia and the Public Space: An Incongruity Explored Through Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red

Abstract

The article studies art, as presented in Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red, as a heterotopia based on Michel Foucault’s six principles. After outlining the six principles of heterotopia as enunciated by Foucault, the study excavates heterotopia of crisis and deviation from the novel. Art as a medium of representation has cathartic potential creating heterotopia in societies dominated by public discourses against art. It provides the artist with a medium for personal and private expression, thus creating a desanctified space. The notion that art that is made public restricts such liberty for the artist is proposed and justified. In My Name Is Red, characters such as Elegant Effendi and Olive can be seen tormented by the conflict between the social and the heterotopic. True expression of their art makes both of them lose their place, albeit in different ways. This implies that if a heterotopia of deviation has to be made public, in most cases, the honesty of expression is tampered with by the artist, even if unconsciously, because of societal pressures. Heterotopia of deviation is not compatible with the public gaze and making it public will create a heterotopia of crisis for the honest artists. This is why the artist hides his real creative inspiration. If art could be accepted as a desanctified medium without any moral or hegemonic judgment, it might attain its desired impact which politicization of the medium restricts in many judgmental societies. Pamuk pens this dilemma down by taking his readers back to the 16th-century Istanbul while drawing a parallel to the present era.

All good art comes from mixing things from different roots and cultures

—Pamuk (2003, in an interview with Knopf)

This study explores multiple facets of the artistic space in Orhan Pamuk’s My Name Is Red (1998) through the lens of Michel Foucault’s heterotopia. The facets explored include the role of the artistic medium as a liberating space by being a medium of expression, representation, and catharsis. The concept of heterotopia, as enunciated by Michel Foucault (1926-1984) as a space constituted of the real and the utopic elements, is made analogous with art. Thus, the artistic is explored as a third space, which comprises of its own set of properties and principles, deviating from while still existing in the real world. In this regard, the artistic space is analyzed as representing, contesting, and even inverting the mainstream tradition, public gaze, and artist’s point of view.

Foucault in his essay “of Other spaces”, which was first delivered as a lecture in 1967, defines heterotopic spaces in the following words:

There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places—places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society—which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted. Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality. (Foucault, 1984, p. 3)

Thus, there are three broader elements of heterotopia: representation, contestation, and inversion. These three elements are very much relevant to this study for the exploration of the multiple facets of the artistic space in My Name Is Red. Art has the potential to represent to the extent that representation may become more powerful than reality. Through this representation, the dominant culture can be contested and its tenets may be inverted.

The ostensible topic of My Name Is Red is the clash between Eastern and Western tradition of visual art (Çiçekoglu, 2003a). The dominant form in the 16th-century Ottoman capital Istanbul is the miniature painting style inherited from Persian painting. The miniature painting is an extension of a particular piece of text rather than painting for its own sake, hence serving the text as a footnote though more dominant visually (Çiçekoglu, 2003b). The introduction of Venetian style is patronized by Sultan Murad III (r.1574-95), who has commissioned a team of miniaturists comprising of Butterfly, Olive, Stork, and Elegant headed by Enishte to prepare an illustrated book in the Frankish or Venetian style. Elegant, who is a specialist in gilding, considers this stylistic change a blasphemy and one of his fellow miniaturists murders him because of the fear of being exposed. Later, Enishte is also murdered. Black, who is Enishte’s nephew, is summoned back to support him in the preparation of the secret book by writing stories for the paintings. He returns to Istanbul after spending 12 years in Persia and happens to take the role of the detective to resolve this murder mystery. While resolving the mystery, Black incidentally excavates the artistic approach behind the art of each of the miniaturists.

Fiction is a medium that best encompasses the third space properties of a heterotopia, for example, Knight (2014) traces heterotopic space in the works of James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov, and W. G. Sebald. Similarly, other art forms like painting also provide ample room for creating a heterotopia. For example, Gurses (2013) contends that the novel and the paintings discussed in My Name Is Red are not quite distinct from one another. The line between the two arts in general is not as impermeable as it appears to be (Gurses, 2013). The artistic third space can be an answer to binaries which have been established by the dominant cultural norms by providing a set of choices (Soja, 1996). This set of choices is created through other spaces that challenge the powerful and dominant social spaces status quo. Therefore, heterotopias have their own power dynamics by being those other spaces which are in conflict with the mainstream norms. These ambivalent places that simultaneously include and exclude have their own revolutionary codes.

Foucault’s interest with any space lies in its being able to “suspect, neutralize, or invert the set of relations” that it happens to “designate, mirror or reflect” (Foucault, 1987, p. 3). It can be said, therefore, that his interest was with the inextricable relation the space has with its content. The main difference between heterotopia and utopia is that heterotopia is rooted in reality, hence consciousness and is utopic, hence, imaginative. Therefore, one can say that the relationship the occupier (subject) has with the heterotopic space (object) is fixed in creative consciousness. Based on this contention, the study implies that the artist’s creation of their heterotopia or assimilation in the popular tradition is a conscious act. This is why, the concept of accountability and responsibility is also attached to the artistic endeavor in this study.

For the purpose of this study, it is important to define the term “public art” first. Public art, in the context of this study, serves as a medium of expression meant to be opened up for the public. Private art, on the contrary, refers to the art that undergoes censorship or faces public pressure if it has to be made public. However, public art is not synonymous with commercial art. This is because the main purpose of commercial art is to sell itself to make money. The distinction between public and private art is also made in My Name Is Red through the two different books that have been commissioned by the Sultan. One is the “Book of Festivities” demonstrating the celebrations of the circumcision ceremony of the prince. That book is being headed by Master Osman. The second book is a “secret book.” This book is being supervised by Enishte Effendi. The four Master miniaturists are working on both the books. The content of the latter, however, is more problematic as Enishte is experimenting with a new style and perspective in it. This is why when private details about the secret book start coming out, the miniaturists find themselves enveloped in controversy. The secret book will be discussed as artistic heterotopia based on the principles of heterotopia as enunciated by Foucault.

The secret book creates the main discourse of this novel, the clash of Eastern versus Western art in the 16th-century Istanbul. A shift takes place in the perspective about traditional art and the miniaturist question traditional Turkish art with a wish to incorporate Venetian art in their illustrations (Lekesizalin, 2009). The secret book initiates the controversy about Venetian (European) way of illustration, dividing the Muslim miniaturists into two groups that go against each other. While criticized, the secret book is simultaneously more inclusive, thus providing a heterotopic space to the artists. For example, Enishte is of the view that although he is following the Venetian style of painting, his book would not only illustrate material objects, “but naturally the inner riches, joys and fears of the realm over which our Sultan rules” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 25).

The book has been kept secret as it does not conform to the public gaze. The danger in making it public lies in the criticism and social pressure that may politicize the work of art. This is what happens when rumors about the secret book spread and Husret Hoja and his followers declare the Venetian style of painting blasphemous and heretic what Enishte and his miniaturists are introducing in the secret book. The verdict causes anxiety among the miniaturists to the extent that Elegant decides to abandon the project. It is for this reason that he gets killed at the hands of his fellow miniaturist Olive. Olive believes that Elegant would take them all down with him by believing and thus validating the cause of Husret Hoja and his minions. This is how the private art that acts as a heterotopia as well as the representation of one’s original ideas is susceptible to extinction when made public.

During Enishte and Olive’s conversation after which Olive murders him, at one point Enishte says that their situation as artists is even more dangerous because they are “struggling to make pictures in a Muslim city” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 166). Thus, he associates the social pressure to religion as religious is not only intertwined with the social in this society but also the interpretations by certain clerics are considered absolute by the public. Therefore, the artists feel angst which can be interpreted as guilt subsumed with remorse because of the judgment accompanying public gaze. Enishte expresses his angst to Olive that the “miniaturists are inclined to feel guilty and regretful . . . We make our books in secret like shameful sinners . . . the endless guilt both deadens and nourishes the artist’s imagination” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 166). The study interprets the impact of social hegemony on art and the resultant escape of the artist by hiding in his artistic heterotopia for catharsis. When art is made public, if it is not in line with the views of the dominant gaze, it might become troublesome for the artist but may simultaneously nourish his creative impulse.

In Turkish archival documents, the first traces of the history of miniature painting in the Ottoman Empire appear around the 15th century (Atil, 1973). It is estimated that the period in which identifiable objects in miniature painting appear fall within the reign of Mehmed II (1451-81). Even though there are no definitive archival documents available, an album of calligraphy, drawing, and a few portraits are on record that are assumed to be from the 15th century. The Istanbul school of painting at this time is best known for its interaction with the Italian style. Mehmed II would request artists such as Matteo de Pasti, Gentile Bellini, and Costanza da Ferrara (Atil, 1973) to visit his court. These visits may be the cause of the Venetian influence, which results in the main conflict in My Name Is Red. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that the Kings patronized art and kept it open to new influences. So the court itself provides a heterotopic space to the artists.

Pamuk, in an interview, stated that the main difference between the Eastern and Western style was that of approach only. One is seeing the world from human eye, the other from God’s eye. The Eastern was only an act of mimesis, an attempt to try to see from God’s eye (Knopf, 2003). The masters of old either copied previous artworks or worked on a piece together to illustrate a story. Illustrations, therefore, instead of standing alone mostly accompanied a story. So, it may be said that there wasn’t a sense of individual ownership in the work of any artist.

My Name Is Red presents the audience with another way of looking at the Islamic tradition. Pamuk suggests reasons behind the absence of freedom to own one’s heterotopia (in the form of art) through characters such as Husret Hoja. This character and the general air of threat in the novel, around the idea of ownership and individualism of the artist, surface as a tool to deconstruct the thought processes behind the Turkish artistic tradition as we see in retrospect now. It makes one wonder if artists such as Olive and Enishte Effendi had been allowed to practice their art, would it have resulted in complete assimilation of the Eastern in the Western tradition of art. And is that a good thing? According to Pamuk, he is not in favor of any conflict; he is only of the opinion that good art is created through mixing disparate elements (Knopf, 2003). When acceptance of disparate elements is scanty, many types of heterotopia may emerge in a society.

Six Principles of Foucauldian Heterotopia

It is important to discuss the six principles of the heterotopic space as stated by Michel Foucault, first. Each of the six principles is discussed in detail below along with textual references so that it can be seen how the content of the novel fits in each category of heterotopia.

Heterotopia of Crisis and Deviation

The first principle classifies heterotopia into two groups. The first one is identified by Foucault as the crisis heterotopia. This heterotopia is a reserved space for members of a society who may be in a state of crisis (Foucault, 1987). Art has universally been serving as a heterotopia of crisis for those who are able to see its full potential as a space without judgment for the cause behind the state of crisis (whatever that cause may be). The second type is the heterotopia of deviation. This heterotopia is meant for people whose behavior is deviant from the accepted/dominant norms. In My Name Is Red, Enishte is being drawn to the Venetian way of painting which is looked down upon and considered blasphemous by the hegemonic social order. Thus, he and his miniaturists create a heterotopia of crisis for themselves. The major characters who start showing deviant behaviors let themselves manifest in their art or at least seek that kind of liberty. Furthermore, Olive’s art starts becoming more deviant as the murderer’s voice starts getting stronger, and his crisis increases. Similarly, the coffeehouse, which is home to all the deviant elements in 16th-century Istanbul, can also be considered as a heterotopia of deviation.

Heterotopia of Emplacement and Displacement

The second principle states that over the course of history a society may treat its heterotopia differently. Foucault gives the example of changing positions of cemeteries from the homes to churchyards to graveyards outside the city. Foucault highlights that it is because the world is leaning more toward atheism now that cemeteries are becoming more important (Foucault, 1987, p. 5). This heterotopia is also very relevant to the novel as art has been treated differently by societies over the years. Even within Ottoman Empire, the tradition of calligraphy reached from Persia and made its place as an acceptable form of art. Similarly, the interaction with the Western form of art led to attaching new significance to the blended form of art. Whereas calligraphy is a heterotopia by aligning words and images, the Venetian way makes a painting look very close to its real form, painting inspiring interpretation, not the words inspiring a painting. Thus the world in My Name Is Red is opening up to new influences, replacing old traditions with new, hybrid ones. Similarly, attaching blasphemy to coffee in those times which is completely in vogue in all Muslim societies nowadays shows the changes in the interpretation of blasphemy over the centuries.

Heterotopia of Juxtaposition

According to the third principle of heterotopia, multiple places that are otherwise incompatible are brought together in a heterotopic space. This can be called heterotopia of juxtaposition. Foucault’s examples of this are the ancient Persian lawns whose four corners were supposed to represent the four corners of the world (Foucault, 1987, p. 6). It was supposed to represent a kind of microcosm. This too applies to art as in a painting or a novel or a poem; the artist or the writer can formulate a microcosm bringing different aspects of our world together and juxtaposing them against each other. Although calligraphy already juxtaposes word and image, the secret book juxtaposes Eastern and Western elements of art. The novel also juxtaposes multiple viewpoints not only that of narrators but also of the interpreters of the religion, whose interpretations may be altogether different from the true spirit of the religion.

Heterotopia of Time

The fourth principle is with reference to time. Heterotopia, as Foucault points out is often connected with “slices in time” (Foucault, 1987, p. 6). Heterotopias are considered to be functioning at their maximum capacity when people break away from traditional time. Art being a timeless entity fits this criterion well. Time may be passing outside of the art piece but the contents of the piece (like a Grecian urn) will always represent one time and one situation that may, even at the time of its creation, have never existed in reality. The painter can also draw from anywhere in time and a painting can be a break from traditional time for the spectators. This aspect has been discussed in the novel by considering the potential of art for making images and stories mortal or immortal.

For example, Stork in one of his three stories on “Painting and Time” mentions Ibn Shakir, who was the most “renowned and proficient calligrapher” of his time. Stork states that Ibn Shakir was of the belief that the books he had transcribed would last forever and so “lived with a deep and infinite notion of time” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 70). This notion was, however, destroyed by Mongols who took over Baghdad and destroyed all the libraries and the books. But this gave Ibn Shakir the inspiration to focus his attention and skills to painting instead of transcribing. And so, the notion of forever for the Arab calligraphers manifested itself “not in writing, but in painting” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 70). When Black after coming back to Istanbul goes to meet Master Osman, he asks the great Master what in his opinion “separates the genuine miniaturist from the ordinary” (Pamuk 60). The Master says his distinguishing would have to be based on three questions which he will ask the miniaturist. One of those questions was about how that artist would feel about their work “changing hands, being unbound” and their art being “used in other books and other eras” after those who commissioned those books are long dead (Pamuk, 1998, p. 60). This would clearly tell Master Osman what the intellectual potential and priorities of that artist are. Though he did not mention which will be the answers that will categorize someone as a genuine artist, this question along with the one about the “illustrator’s time and Allah’s time” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 60) informs the reader that art has the potential to become heterotopia of time and this notion is quite significant in the context of Venetian versus Ottoman art.

Heterotopia of Opening and Closing

The fifth principle of heterotopia pertains to the initiation of people into the third space. Foucault states that heterotopias are spaces that open and close, meaning they are not simply available for anyone to enter or exit as they please. Foucault points out that either people will be made to enter such a space, as is the case with prisons or they will have to “submit to the rites and purifications” (Foucault, 1987, p. 7). This principle implies that a heterotopia should not be easily accessible to the masses. This is where the incongruity surfaces when art is being studied as a heterotopia. An example of this is the secret book that has been commissioned by the Sultan in My Name Is Red. The miniaturists who, once, have been assigned the project cannot leave it. The desire of quitting leads to Elegant’s murder at the hands of Olive. The question about art changing hands relates to heterotopia’s fifth principle which “presupposes a system of opening and closing” (Foucault, 1987, p. 7). The very thought of one’s heterotopia passing through the hands of an unknown public is troublesome for an artist when art serves as a third space for him. Therefore, the secret book has its own system of opening and closing.

Heterotopia of Illusion and Compensation

The last principle of heterotopia is concerened with illusion and compensation. The heterotopia of illusion exposes the real spaces wherein human life is partitioned. So this is a kind of heterotopia that takes a real site and makes it more intense in its nature so that it may represent one aspect purely, and that aspect is usually of a deviant nature—something that cannot be practiced with equal intensity in a public space. In the novel, Olive’s art falls in this category. Master Osman who has known the miniaturists since they were children, considers Olive a genuine artist because he expresses through his painting, to the point that it may be interpreted as challenging Allah (Pamuk, 1998, p. 257). His work is more intense and in depth. Therefore, his work may fall in the category of illusion. Heterotopia of compensation, on the contrary, is the one in which a real situation is created but it is “as perfect, as meticulous, as well arranged as ours is messy, ill constructed, and jumbled” (Foucault, 1987, p. 8). This second type of heterotopia can be beautified art which aims to show beauty and order that is realistic in its portrayal of the world as it is. Master Osman described Butterfly to be a “genuine miniaturist” if “art is meant to be only a festival for their eyes” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 258). Butterfly himself says that he believes God probably wanted “the art of illumination to be ecstasy” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 68). And he considers himself the right person to demonstrate the fact that the world itself is nothing short of ecstasy at least “to those who truly see” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 68). For such artist, his art itself is the compensation.

After briefly outlining the six principles of heterotopia, let’s have an in depth analysis of art as heterotopia of crisis and deviation in the novel.

Heterotopia of Crisis

The novel sketches conflicts that disrupt the art and the artist generating barriers to desire while simultaneously intensifying it. Lekesizalin (2009) finds art “haunted by the ghosts of an overpowering tradition” (p. 91) while the miniaturists wish to add innovations to it influenced by the Western art. This desire creates a heterotopia of crisis for them as they have to work secretively to fulfill their desire as they would be rejected by the society at large if that art is made public. The miniaturists with Venetian art as their object of desire become “traumatized” (p. 91) beings restricted and isolated to secret book, the forbidden heterotopia. Innovation is subversion and must be restricted to a heterotopia which is the case with these miniaturists as they and the secret book are declared blasphemous.

The most important aspect which causes so much discussion on the topics of style and signature in the novel is the fear of being considered blasphemous, and that creates heterotopia of crisis. This is what causes Elegant’s death and this is what masters (who are used to and revere the Persian style) find abhorrent about the Venetian way of painting. The murderer at one point in the novel says “[w]hat was venerated as style was nothing more than an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 18). The fact that the hand that paints is referred to as “guilty” draws the reader’s attention to the entire concept of drawing and creating. Religion was a major part of the common man’s social life in 16th-century Istanbul. The social life in Istanbul at the time in which this novel is set is highly religious in all aspects. Even the murderer, despite his open and detailed description of the crime, has an attitude rooted in religious consciousness. Therefore, the artists are insecure and constantly tormented about their art and the level of individuality they are allowed to exhibit in it. In such a setting, the idea of creation, or imagination, and then its illustration in its essence can also be viewed as a blasphemous act. The idea is put more eloquently by Master Osman in the novel. He says, “Manuscript illumination leads to painting and painting in turn, leads to—God forbid—challenging Allah” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 257). This statement explicitly conveys that artists open themselves up to such probability when they become practitioners of art. Another interesting observation Master Osman makes is that due to “lack of faith, Olive is a genuine artist” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 257).

This situation reinstates the position of art as a heterotopic space because the miniaturists in the novel, such as Enishte, Olive, and even Butterfly are all shown having ulterior motives and working on questionable things behind closed doors. This kind of an endeavor equates it to that description of heterotopia which, according to Foucault, manifests itself in brothels and other socially unacceptable or questionable spaces.

Heterotopia of Deviation

Heterotopia of deviation accommodates people with deviant behavior and attitudes. The best example of this is the coffeehouse in the novel. When Black comes back, he is told that scoundrels and rebels gather together in coffeehouses and proselytize until dawn. The storyteller, in the coffeehouse, displays the picture of a dog before the audience which is hastily but elegantly drawn on a rough paper. He impersonates a dog by becoming his voice while pointing out to the picture time and again. Through the dog, he criticizes Husret Hoja for his rejection of music, coffee, and his verdict that both dervish and coffeehouses should be banned. The dog points out the maltreatment given to dogs in that society by being considered impure in spite of the fact that a dog protected the seven men of the Cave as mentioned in the Quran and is upset on Cleric’s verdicts and dislike of coffeehouses. Thus, he challenges the dominant tradition and inverts it through an art form in the coffeehouse which is a heterotopia of deviation. The murderer and miniaturists also have a deviant behavior because the coffeehouse is their favorite place. The murderer feels happy to be over there and listen to the storyteller. Many miniaturists visit the place every night. Thus, the coffeehouse not only becomes author’s tool of criticizing dominant norms of the society but also a shelter house for all those who question or need a break from hegemonic social structures.

The character of Olive in the novel may be seen as being the representation of an enlightened or self-aware artist. At one point, while pondering upon the murderer within him that has come out victorious leaving the other side behind, Olive talks about his childhood in retrospect. He recalls that even though he was able to be himself with his kith and kin and had a reasonably good time he always felt that there was “a silence within” him that left him “suffering and isolated in the heart of the crowd” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 284). That silence and the feeling of being isolated may be linked to the awareness of the fact that despite being comfortable and appreciated, it is not possible to be completely open and honest. This creates a feeling of almost being there but not quite. This dilemma inspires a deviant behavior.

Olive also states how Enishte Effendi got “great satisfaction” from working on a “forbidden book” which had been commissioned by the Sultan himself and which no one else knew about (Pamuk, 1998, p. 393). Enishte, according to Olive, was in awe of the Frankish masters but could not openly admit it for the fear of being accused of sacrilege, but even he, at the bottom of his heart, knew there was nothing blasphemous about either the Frankish way of painting or this book. But he still hid it. There can be two possible reasons behind it; the thrill of having a secret, or the fear of the public gaze. The latter seems more probable in this case because even Olive says that if “we’d made a painting [in the Frankish style] with the intent of exhibiting it, that would’ve been sacrilege” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 393). However, he doesn’t consider it to be sacrilege? This makes their situation a heterotopia of deviation about which Olive is adamant but Enishte secretive.

Artist, Heterotopia, and Representation

After establishing art as a heterotopia, let’s have a look at the nature of relationship between the artist and his art/heterotopia. Pamuk’s master miniaturists all seem to treat art (as a medium of representation, inversion, and catharsis) differently. This is depicted in the novel through the master miniaturists’ account of how each of them would draw a horse. Master Osman, who is the oldest of them all and also the most traditional, believes that when a painter paints a horse’s speed and fury, he is not depicting his own speed and fury. According to him, the painter through his work will only reveal “his love for the richness of this world and its creator . . .only that and nothing more” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 263). This implies that Master Osman’s art does not question tradition. On the contrary, Olive who is a daring artist, and who does not want to keep himself out of his art says “when I draw a magnificent horse, I become that magnificent horse” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 275). This shows a deviance in approach as the traditional masters (represented in the novel by Master Osman) encourage detachment. Master Osman says about Olive that he was “the most quiet and sensitive, but also the most guilty and traitorous, and by far the most devious” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 257). Olive’s, therefore, is clearly heterotopia of deviation which serves for his catharsis too. This is why Olive has been given two separate voices in the novel. He has to have a secret voice to say what he really wants to, and therefore, he is the only one who wants to make maximum use of the secret book as a heterotopic space.

Butterfly, on the contrary, wants to make popular art. He is the richest of them all and considers it an important element in the encouragement and satisfaction of the artist. He wants to please the Sultan as well as Master Osman. Therefore, he is of the view, “when I draw a magnificent horse, I become a great master of old drawing that horse” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 277). This is because he knows that the style of the great masters is appreciated by the authorities as well as the masses and it would keep him out of trouble. Master Osman says about him that if the art of miniature painting is to “only be a festival for the eyes, then Butterfly is indeed a true miniaturist” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 258). Hence, Butterfly creates visually appeasing art. But then even he “knows this isn’t enough” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 259). Master Osman believes that someone must have whispered to him that “in his work everything was as joyous as a holiday” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 259). This kind of art is welcomed in public. This then creates a distinction in kinds of heterotopias too. Butterfly’s art is meant for public catharsis of their fixed unquestionable notions, acting as heterotopia of compensation for public only. What the artist depicts in their work is dependent upon their own natural disposition. Art, therefore, only serves as a medium for the artist to showcase their understanding of the world around them.

The last in this list is Stork. When the royal messenger comes to his house to ask him to paint the most beautiful horse he can make for a contest, he traces an old one that he sees in his collection of copies of the most beautiful illustrations he has come across. He also gives some counterfeit Venetian gold pieces to the pageboy as a bribe so that he won’t tell on him. It is interesting to note, however, that he does say if he draws the way he wants to, he won’t win the contest. That provides the reader with the hint that maybe in a different world he would have been a different kind of artist. But as due to Husret Hoja and his people, the general air of judgment and politics surrounds miniature art, he has resigned himself to the practicality of it all and accepts it as only his profession and bread earner. Therefore, he says, “when I draw a magnificent horse, I am who I am, nothing more” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 279). In a way, this is closest to Master Osman’s description of what an artist ought to be aiming for. And so it may be said that Stork is the kind of artist who would survive, and who does actually get out of the mess unscathed, at the end. He withdraws himself from his art completely and only treats his position as a miniaturist as his occupation. His art is not a heterotopia for him; he is only treating it as his profession.

While discussing art as a heterotopia, it is pertinent to take into account its cathartic potential. Art has been seen extensively as a way for readers and spectators to vicariously live out their infantile or unacceptable fantasies (Alcorn & Bracher, 1985). However, the need to make art public is also inherent in the artist as Enishte says to Olive, that the artist indulges in work to get away from dominant social trends and “the “prattle of others.” However, when the work is complete, they are struck with the desire to share it with public (Pamuk, 1998, p. 166). One reason for this can be a desire for acknowledgment, another, praise for themselves. For example, Olive admits the need of acknowledgment toward the end when he shows Stork, Butterfly, and Black the final picture of the secret book which is his own portrait. He has made himself the center and is not ashamed of it. He says that he does not fear others bowing down before him or worshipping him, but “on the contrary, this is what I desire” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 398). While Stork’s concern with his art was only to the extent of it being his bread earner and occupation, Butterfly has an added incentive behind his attachment to his work. He wants praise to the extent of being worshipped. However, this is a degrading desire as Master Osman says that “Butterfly’s inclination to design and illustrate for other people’s pleasure rather than for his own, his uncontrollable need to please others, made him, more than any of the others, a slave to praise” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 260).Therefore, those who create art for the sake of fame prefer public art which may result in the production of degenerated popular art. Therefore, Butterfly’s art can be considered equivalent to popular art in today’s world. He uses bright colors to make his work look attractive to the public gaze. He also sides the view that is dominant in his times and surroundings, for example, when the Persian way is hailed as a great form of art, he joins in. When Enishte wants him to draw in the Venetian way, he adopts it without being passionate and ambitious like Olive, or distraught and scared like Elegant, or apathetic like Stork. He brushes beautiful objects in any requisite style because his main concern is to please people. Therefore, his is the kind of art that will most probably be safe in the public realm. Therefore, he represents public without any challenges to dominant thought and never bothers to invert it. As an artist, he assimilates to the popular tradition and conforms to what is beneficial.

On the contrary, Master Osman tells Black, “genuine artists have an instinctive desire to draw what’s forbidden” (Pamuk, 1998, p. 253). Such artists invert the popular tradition and dare to face hostility in the public sphere. This is exactly the kind of art that creates a heterotopic space and serves the artist as well as the spectator with catharsis through inversion. Therefore, the public in a way deprives itself of true artistic expression when it renders art the role of a moralizing force. If art is freed from public pressure, especially in judgmental societies, the medium may become more representative as the heterotopic artistic space inverts the popular and hegemonic traditions to represent larger than reality aspects paving way for both artistic and spectator’s catharsis which may be called inclusive catharsis, representing diverse tastes and visions.

The novel also highlights the relationship of money with art. In the narrative of the gold coin, the coin talks about how money has become a measure of talent. Money decides how worthy an artist and how valuable his art is. This results in two unwanted outcomes; commercialization, and/or politicization. Though being paid for one’s art is not necessarily a bad thing, as Butterfly believes, however, it may lead to a change or shift in priorities of the artist. When money enters the equation, it brings along other elements of the real world with it such as judgment, public approval, and public appeal too. This then creates a monopoly of a particular kind of art at any given moment in time. For example, the pop culture of any era will include this kind of art. The coin states that it takes pride in “being recognized as a measure of talent among artists and in putting an end to unnecessary disagreements” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 102). A little later it also says “now that my judgment decides everything, there’s a sweet harmony in the workshop” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 102). Therefore, money may be seen as a deciding factor for the worth of an artist. Money, hence, becomes an incentive causing a heterotopia to lose its “otherness” and consequently the properties associated with that otherness.

During Olive’s encounter with Enishte at the end of which the latter is murdered by the former, Enishte can be found saying “if you grant that an illustrator must never reveal his soul in his work, intelligence is, of course, an asset” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 165). In the beginning of this chapter, the soul had been equated with the content of the heterotopia, and the physical body to the canvas. As the art which these miniaturists make is either for books or other public art platforms, they cannot depict themselves or their souls in their art. Succumbing to societal pressure and the fear of consequences, the artist may feign purity. As the murderer says at one point that when he was asked to make a horse, he knew immediately that he was in trouble and that they were trying to look for the murderer. And so he says that “I ‘restrained’ myself and became another” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 279). And so if the self-aware artist ever feels that he or she is being put in a dubious or suspect position, they might immediately turn into someone else. And so the art they produce is no longer heterotopia, hence no longer completely honest.

Honesty of an artist’s art cannot be judged by an outsider. The main judge of this is the artist himself. The murderer says “my paintings reveal what the mind, not the eye, sees” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 281). Therefore, the criterion is set by the person who is making the art for only they can tell whether it truly depicts what the mind sees. This may be why blindness is talked about extensively in the novel too. When the artist achieves a certain level of self-awareness, they can draw from the mind’s eye completely, and that will be truest of all arts. And so Masters such as Master Osman want to reach that stage to acquire that level of purity in their art. However, this may not be possible for all artists and many may like to paint what they with the worldly eye. However, eye leads to I, the self of the artist as well as the timelessness and greatness of art. Therefore, the real content lies below the scenes depicted as Master Osman says “what exposes us is . . . the hidden sensibilities we include in the painting” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 263). In this way, honest art becomes a very deep and personal act. And so the medium it resides in is just as sensitive as the content it holds. The art that is exposed to the public may necessarily be this kind of art.

The murderer, while contemplating that ordeal he was put through in drawing the horse like someone else, is found contemplating the kind of artist he is. He wonders if he is the kind of artist who would suppress and stifle the masterpieces he is capable of just because they don’t fit the style of the workshop he has devoted his entire life to? Or will he dare to be the kind of artist “who would one day triumphantly depict the horse deep within himself?” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 279). And it is at this point that Olive feels the presence of a miniaturist within him who he wasn’t completely aware of before. He calls it the “triumphant miniaturist” but at the same time is “ashamed” of himself as a person (Pamuk, 2008, p. 279). And so it is worth noting that the second identity he created, which has been previously referred to as fiction, was not just to kill other men. That identity has evolved into something else. It has introduced Olive to another kind of an artist within him; an artist who would make art that comes most naturally, but which makes Olive feel guilty at the same time. That other identity has allowed Olive to face another miniaturist inside him who is capable of more, because he is more honest and reckless, but whose art would probably not do very well in society.

Conclusion

So these artists who are masters of their art and who are appointed by the Sultan himself to work on a secret book fear to make what they actually want to make because they know it is for a book, which inevitably at some point will become public. The canvas becomes a public place governed by public laws. There is a lot of anxiety attached to making art public. Toward the end, Black tells Olive what he learnt from Master Osman. He says that he was told by the great Master that personal style, which is looked down upon and considered an imperfection in the present world (the 16th century), will be revered because of the rising popularity of the Venetian way. He goes on to say that such a trend will result in the world becoming a more “imperfect place” (Pamuk, 2008, p. 376). This “imperfection” of the world may be linked with the imperfection that is allowed in a heterotopic space, particularly in heterotopia of deviation. Therefore, the heterotopias in general and heterotopia of art in particular has the capacity to grow and become accepted as it exists in its initial form because of the essential human nature and desires. To conclude, if art is shaped by society, it has the capacity to shape society as well, although that process may be spanned over centuries. If honest art can be displaced temporally, it may get its emplacement spatially. The secret book remains real and utopic simultaneously as it never gets completed but fulfills the role of heterotopia of emplacement and deviation in a closed societal order. The artists emplace themselves in a heterotopia of crisis and deviation but add something which becomes the step stone to thinking, questioning, and accepting difference as beauty and not inversion or blasphemy.