Sultan Ali Adil Shah II van Bijapur 1687 - 1688

Editor: Here we have "Sultan Ali Adil Shah II van Bijapur", painted between 1687 and 1688 by Ruknuddin, using watercolour. It's a rather small piece, very delicate, and almost ethereal. How do you interpret this work? Curator: Focusing on materiality, let's consider the watercolour itself. What kind of labor was involved in its creation? The pigments, sourced often from specific locations, the process of grinding and mixing, reflect not just aesthetic choices, but also economic and trade networks of the period. Editor: That’s fascinating. So, the colour itself tells a story? Curator: Precisely. Consider the clothing – the textiles. Were these locally produced, or imported? The sword and jewelry are also indicative of status. It provokes thought on consumerism, how it dictates social identity as the sultan expresses status. This all provides a glimpse into the social structure of Bijapur at the time. How accessible was this portrait and others like it to those lower down the hierarchy? Editor: So it is less about what he *is* saying, but what the painting, the very *making* of it says about its society. Does the flat perspective relate to this understanding, too? Curator: In a way, yes. This artistic choice might speak to cultural preferences, to whom it served and the means with which the artist was working. The flat perspective brings forward how these materials might function. What this communicates through composition relates to the historical and cultural background, how they wanted to consume imagery, how the production of imagery circulated at that time. It almost becomes more about the system of its being made, rather than who the Sultan actually was as an individual. Editor: It definitely adds layers I hadn’t considered. Thank you for opening my eyes to these production aspects! Curator: Of course. Looking at art through a material lens, really makes you think of process over everything else!