The painting was in the hands of Howard Hodgkin, a British painter, before it was held within the New York auction house Terence McInerney Fine Arts Ltd., and eventually sold to the Met Museum in 1992.
In the 1570s, Shah Tahmasb, who had aided Mughal emperor Humayun in taking back his own throne, had lost much of his interest in the arts and many of the Safavid court artists had migrated to the Mughal court over the course of several years. This fragmentation continued following his successor's, Shah Isma‘il, death, as artists had moved to different cities or become attached to government officials as a safety measure.
Habiballah of Sava had begun his artistry in one of these notable cities, Qumm. It was during this period as well that Shah ‘Abbas proved himself the very opposite of Tahmasb, being an appreciative patron of the arts. His work on reforming the perception of Persian art prioritised what was considered more economically beneficial over the then-traditional religious artistry. Because of this, illustrated manuscripts were slowly replaced by a mass of single-page paintings, such as this rendition of a horse by Habiballah.
This new fashion of subject matter allowed Habiballah to focus on intricacies over composition, such as the feather ornament and the saz-leaf pattern of the silk draped over the horse. Even this silk is an indication of Shah ‘Abbas' influence, as he had also prioritised Iran's silk production and trade during the time when this painting would likely have been made. It is because of this silk that we can assume its time period. A lone horse as the main subject of Habiballah's painting demonstrates how art is often the result of politics, or otherwise influenced by it, regardless of how close to political figures the artist is.
This is not a drawing about a horse. It is a drawing about the idea of royal possession. The Metropolitan Museum of Art bought this relic in 1992 for its Islamic wing. And when the light hits the uneven speckles of gold in that saddlecloth, you understand why. You are not looking at a pet; you are looking at a perfect, untouchable symbol of a sovereignty the artist had lost but chose to render flawless anyway.
