[Redbook9:182-183][19910423:0920b]{The
Nature of Islam}[23rd April 1991]
19910423.0920
[continued]
*Why
does the starting-point of Islam at c[irca] [2048]MU~ seem to
characterise its entire cycle – why doesn’t it just circle round
like cultures which ‘started’ at C? Well, that just seems to be
the way it is – compare the attachment of Rome and of the U.S.A.,
both of which started at [2048]G~, to democratic and republican ideas
(or at least to ideas of civilised behaviour towards people in the
case of Imperial Rome).**
It
is not quite enough to say that Islam is characterised by MU~*** at
least up to soon after 1536[ce]: after all, Rome and the USA started
at [2048]G~ and yet neither was or is particularly original in
artistic terms.****
*{ref
[[Redbook9:116][19910415:0840j]{[Islamic
Art –] The Word (2) [continued (28)]}[15th April 1991],]
116,
[[Redbook9:118-119][19910415:0840m]{[Islamic
Art –] Music [continued (3)]}[15th April 1991]&f?,]
119
(&
see [[Redbook9:124][19910415:0840z]{[Islamic
Art –] Visual Arts}[15th April 1991]&f,]
124-5
[[Redbook9:133-134][19910420:0953h]{Art
Cycles (2)}[20th April 1991],]
133[:]
order
of art)}
**[sic
– for their time, perhaps!]
***{cf
[[Redbook9:236-237][19910501:0800mm]{The
Nature of the Romans}[1st May 1991],]
236}
****{But
see USA’s postwar modern art?}
[&
in fact USA’s postwar everything creative & innovative]
[continued]
[PostedBlogger13for14012025]