LOOKING AT ART AND WRITING ABOUT ART

Constructing the Orient: Art, Ideology, and the Legacy of Colonial Imagination

“Orientalism” is a Western ideological framework rooted in the misrepresentation, generalization, and classification of Eastern cultures along racial and ethnic lines. It emerges from a foundation of ethnocentrism, establishing a dichotomy between the West and “the Orient” and institutionalizing a system of othering. Through this lens, Eastern societies are constructed as static, exotic, and inferior—a narrative shaped by Western imagination rather than ethnographic reality.

This artificial construction is evident in Jean-Léon Gérôme’s 19th-century painting Slave Market. Gérôme’s work presents a dramatized vision of Eastern society, ostensibly referencing political and economic systems of trade. Yet the image is steeped in exoticism, eroticism, and voyeurism, particularly through the depiction of the nude female slave. Seen through the male gaze, the painting transforms the scene into a spectacle, emphasizing sensuality over substance. Gérôme’s portrayal offers little in the way of cultural accuracy; instead, it perpetuates a fantasy shaped by Western desires and preconceptions. Such mystification underscores the absence of ethnographic focus in much of Western Orientalist art, which often substitutes real cultural complexity with pseudo-representations.

A parallel phenomenon of cultural appropriation can be found in the Victorian fascination with Japanese art and design—commonly referred to as Japonisme. The Western integration of Japanese visual culture in the 19th century rarely signified genuine appreciation or understanding. Instead, it served European aesthetic interests, rooted in novelty, exoticism, and a desire to consume the “other.” Like Orientalism, Japonisme contributed to the legacy of imperialism by creating stylized, essentialized images that reduced non-Western cultures to decorative or symbolic motifs.

Drawing from Edward Said’s critique, distortion is central to the function of Orientalism. Orientalist art, as Said argues, visually reinforces disparities between cultures, projecting groups from “the Orient” through a lens shaped by exoticism, mystification, eroticism, and racism. John Berger’s concept of “cultural mystification” further supports this critique, describing the process by which artworks are divorced from their cultural context. In doing so, such images become abstracted symbols—tools in the construction of tropes that objectify and dehumanize their subjects.

This abstraction leads to a representation of Eastern societies as fixed in time: unchanging, undeveloping, and eternal. These portrayals are often passed off as objective knowledge, promoting a vision of Eastern people “as they are, were, and always will be.” The division between “the West” and “the Orient” was never neutral—it served to establish a hierarchy, placing Western modernity and rationality above Eastern traditionalism and mysticism.

In this way, “the Orient” is not a place, but a Western invention built from stereotypes and selective narratives. These representations were designed to assert dominance and justify control. By generalizing diverse cultures into a singular, monolithic image, Orientalism discredits self-representation and undermines the agency of the people it depicts. It strips them of the right to define their own identities, beliefs, and cultural heritage, reinforcing Eurocentric power structures that continue to shape global discourse.

Citations:

Said, Edward W. Edward Said on Orientalism. Northampton, MA : Media Education Foundation, 2002.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Classics, 2008.