Analysis of Sadiqi Beg Afshar’s Function in Safavid Art Field Based on the Reciprocal Relationship Between Habitus and Field

In the second half of the sixteenth century, Shah Tahmasp drawn his back on the field of art, court supporting of the art and artists was minimized and the political events after the death of Shah Tahmasb added the complexity of the situation. This situation forced Sadiqi Beg to adopt the suitable strategy in accordance with the new relations governing the field of culture. This strategy was to turn to personal habitus and rely on own individuality. The present study, while paying attention on the historical relations and social developments affecting the second half of the sixteenth century’s Safavid art, has emphasized the relations between activists in the field of culture, the personal motivations of the artists, or the effect of these relations on his final function. The main target is to understand the relationship between the function of the artist (here Sadiqi Beg) and the influential forces in the art scene of sixteenth century. As a result, the artist’s specific function in relation to the dominant discourse has been examined and recognized. In order to strengthen the mentioned concepts, the performance of Sdiqii contemporary artists such as Aghareza and Alireza Abbasi has also been briefly discussed To find this relationship and draw its coordinates, primary historical sources and documents have been analyzed and interpreted. Therefore, the quiddity of this research is qualitative and historical and with the descriptive-explanatory method has been analyzed the special and symbolic function of Sadiqi Beg during the social and political changes of that time. The analytical approach used in interpreting texts, reports, and functions in this article is the issue of Pierre Bourdieu’s relational sociology. This approach led us to realize that the relations in the field of Safavid art and culture in the second half of the sixteenth century were such that it forced the activists presents in it to act according to their personal habitus and the amount of symbolic capital at their disposal. They chose the appropriate strategy with the requirement of the field, and in this regard, they followed the laws governing the field of politics and power.