The Beauty of the Arabian Horse… between Fundamentalism and Modernity — by Yasser Ghanim

(Translated into English from an Arabic article by Yasser Ghanim on Facebook)

Not a day—perhaps not even an hour—passes without seeing a post on Facebook or Instagram praising a specific stallion or mare. In all these posts, the publisher always admires the horse championship, and dazzling beauty. Naturally, this is accompanied by photos and videos displaying “lavish beauty,” exquisite type, and a breathtaking presence—at least, as seen through the eyes of the poster.

However, I feel a sense of sorrow because, in most of these cases, I do not share the same appreciation or admiration for the majority of these horses. It appears that the standards of taste and the criteria for beauty have diverged significantly between “Fundamentalists” (like myself) and our brethren whom I call the “Modernists.” Beauty of the Arabian horse has become a completely relative concept with big divergence between the two factions and two very distinct perceptions.

What is the standard type of the Arabian horse, if any? Or rather, what are its most typical and most desirable traits? And what are the morphological (visual) traits upon which we build our appreciation of beauty? This is a question that occupies everyone, yet there seems to be no consensus among enthusiasts.

The one thing I can assert with certainty is that the prevailing references for Arabian horse specifications today are not Arab. It is largely Western, rooted in Western writings and paintings, or in Western organizations concerned with competitions or registration. This prevails despite the attempts by some to invoke ancient Arabic texts to demonstrate an alleged congruence between them and the modernist standards formulated by the Western Orientalism.

The specifications of the Arabian horse can be divided into several main aspects, which I can summarize generally under four categories:

* Morphology: The seeable traits divided into form and motion, falling under the judging terms of Conformation and Movement (or what Modernists abbreviate as Type).

* Psychological and Mental Traits: Falling under the term Disposition.

* Functional and Athletic Traits: Falling under the term Performance.

* Biological and Genetic Traits: Summarized under the term Genotype.

Another way of categorization would be Phenotype (the first three categories together) versus Genotype. However, distinction is needed between Morphology as a narrow concept of “seeable” traits, and Phenotype as a broader concept of all “observable” traits, and how morphology is assessed within the context of the more comprehensive phenotype.

Throughout the history of horse in general, and the Arabian horse in particular (noting the recent discovery of the fourth category of genetics), all these groups of traits were completely integrated, representing faces of a single coin. It was inconceivable to separate them or evaluate one in isolation from the others. Morphological traits generally served functional needs, and psychological/mental traits reflected functional and performance values.

This is particularly evident in the Arabian horse, which represents the pinnacle of nature’s and man’s creativity in shaping a domesticated breed. A domesticated breed differs from wild species in that it has adapted over long epochs to the life conditions and needs of its owners, the characteristics they selected, and the functions they desired. Unlike wild species, which are adapted only to their environment, the adaptation of the Arabian horse as a distinct domesticated breed, occurred over no less than three thousand years of partnership with man—whereas the age of other breeds is measured in merely a few centuries.

The Arabic concept of ‘Itq/’atiq (freedom/nobility/ancientness) and the authenticity of the Arabian breed represent a foundational pillar for the Fundamentalist views and standards of the breed.

As for what I call Modernity and the Modernists here, it refers to what has become common in the last half-century: the separation of the first type of traits (Morphology/Appearance) from the rest, focusing on it independently. This is done while setting the standards is derived primarily from a romantic artistic Orientalist perspective!

To understand how it started, the Orientalist view, at the beginning of Western orientalism three to two centuries ago, exaggerated the contrast between the Arabian horse—refined in structure, graceful in movement, fine-limbed, and generally hot-blooded—and the Western horse—heavy, coarse-limbed, rough-featured, and cold-blooded.

This contrast was highlighted in Orientalist paintings through clear exaggerations in the proportions of the horse’s body parts: reducing the size of the head, increasing its dish (concavity) and the prominence of its bones, and emphasizing bulging eyes, while exaggerating the slenderness and arch of the neck, the fineness of the legs, and the high set of the tail.

These exaggerated measurements (see attached photos) are certainly far from realistic proportions. However, they are acceptable in an artistic context that expresses the artist’s imagination and impressions.

The problem here lies in several aspects:

First: the Western mental image that amplify the contrast between the Arabian horse and others have transformed into a reference point and an acceptable visualization for the “standard proportions” in the Arabian horse, no matter how far they are from reality or the truth of the Arabian horse throughout history.

Second: The separation of these visual traits from their performance and functional equivalents, and from their psychological and mental factors. This assumes absolute standards for these “aesthetic” traits, leading to extreme approach in defining standard proportions and pushing the limits constantly, regardless of the resulting loss or degradation of other traits.

Third: The assumption of a single standard type devoid of “faults.” This leads to a feverish demand for morphological uniformity among breeders, excluding any individuals that deviate from this standard shape—regardless of their other merits. This necessitates extreme breeding practices such as Inbreeding. This negates the concept of natural variation present in any animal breed, the balance of merits and faults it includes, and the genetic diversity it reflects which preserves the vitality of the breed as a whole.

All these aspects have led to a wide gap and a deep chasm between those who adopt the Modernist aesthetic evaluation and those who hold fast to the integration of traits in all their forms, considering the actual examples found today in the breeding community. This has led to a difference in perspective and standards between the two parties that sometimes reaches the point of contradiction!

What Modernists see as a “beautiful head”, the more the dish the more beautiful it is, Fundamentalists see as a genetic deformity, a functional deficiency in breathing, and a performance weakness in the horse’s athletic ability; they find its exaggerated appearance ugly.

What Modernists see as a “beautiful neck” the more slender it becomes, Fundamentalists see as weakness in muscular structure (especially for males) and evidence of the elimination of natural sexual dimorphism between the muscular male and the female.

While Modernists praise the elevation, setting and extreme arching of the neck (citing the Arabic terminology of “Ishraf” as proof), Fundamentalists view this as a weakness and deviation in the formation of the shoulder and a shortening of the humerus bone. This contradicts the correct triangular shape of the shoulder, meaning the “elevation” is false and comes at the expense of a steep/upright shoulder.

The more the back and croup straighten (a trait desired by Modernists) resulting in almost permanent tail carriage, Fundamentalists see this as the loss of the strong back and the rounded croup that generates the horse’s propulsion power.

The more the horse moves and jumps during the show—which Modernists consider “hot blood” and strong personality—Fundamentalists view as tension and psychological disturbance that keeps the horse in a permanent state of anxiety. True “hot blood” appears while riding; conversely, the Arabian horse should show gentleness and reassurance when being led or walking beside its owner!

In parallel with all this:

Fundamentalists look for the length of the ribs, the volume of the ribcage (heart girth), the width of the chest and back, the prominence of the withers, the strength of the coupling (loins), the size and roundness of the croup, the shortness of the cannons, the shortness and slope of the pasterns, the angle of the hock, the size of the hoof, the density of the bone and tendons, the muscular structure, the elasticity of the skeleton, overall body size, height, etc.

Yet, one barely finds a trace of these elements in the Modernists’ evaluation of equine beauty!!

Do not even ask about the remaining psychological and mental traits: intelligence, learning ability, loyalty, obedience, gentleness, calmness, courage, confidence, patience, and endurance.

Do not ask about athletic performance and physical power.

Do not ask about the efficiency of the biological systems: circulatory, respiratory, and nervous systems, energy generation, metabolic waste removal from muscles, immunity against disease, and adaptation to climatic conditions.

Do not ask about the sharpness and refinement of the senses.

And last but not least, do not ask about the strength of the genes, the richness of the gene pool, and freedom from genetic diseases.

The disparity in viewing equine aesthetics and the difference in beauty standards is a deep philosophical difference that goes beyond personal taste. It is a divergence resulting from the general frame of reference and the methodology of evaluation.

This fundamental difference makes one person consider a certain horse “lavishly beautiful,” while someone like me sees it as full of structural and internal faults, devoid of the essentials of a steed. It is closer to a caricature of a horse (in the artistic sense) suitable for the cover of a cartoon magazine than to a real horse worthy of appreciation, celebration, and acquisition.