The Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art Is Re-Emerging
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Unfortunately, I suspect these works do just the opposite, grounded more in western Nihilism than Humanism.
I have to imagine our art would more effectively find commonality with the Iranians if they were to see the great works of Dean Cornwell, John Gannam, Robert Heindel, Henry Patrick Raleigh, Bouguereau, William Waterhouse, John Everett Millais, Andrew Wyeth, and so on.
Unfortunately the western art establishment of today is more interested in perpetual rebellion than beauty -- and so our art has become useless as a tool of human relation.
I'm not sure "we" need to "conquer" their hearts at all. One of my favorite things from the Daily show is when they went to Iran:
The art establishment's writing of art history as a series of rebellions is an ahistorical invention, designed to make the works of Rothko and Pollock seem the necessary end result in a progression of rebellions.
In reality, the majority of the new art movements came, to quote Jesus, "Not abolish the Law or the Prophets; but to fulfill them."
The art critic Fred Ross gave a great speech on this, in 2006, to the Oil Painters of America guild. You can listen to it here: http://audio.artrenewal.org/podcasts/FredRoss060520.mp3
So when these paintings were bought by the Iranian elite they didn't want paintings that showed the depth of Western humanity that can conquer the hearts of their nation. They were guided by a contemporary aesthetic understanding.
I'm not saying Iran is failing for not purchasing better art (that's a different discussion for a different time).
I'm saying our culture is failing for not calling modernism what it was -- a ruse, a blind alley, a death of the heart and intellect. I'm saying we are failing for allowing this charade to go on, to the point that Iran would think this is the best we have to offer.
Wait what?
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/cold-war-modernists/97802311623...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...
https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/23/reviews/000423.23joff...