|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, August 31, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Features
| Previous
| Next
Of art, artists and art history
A useful compendium to a cross-section of Indian subcontinental
art history. That is how GAYATRI SINHA describes Partha Mitter's
new book, ``Indian Art''. Read on...
IN THREE decades, this is Partha Mitter's third book on Indian
art. In each book there has been a different intention and
emphasis, beginning with the seminal analysis of the Western
world's prejudices against Indian iconography in ``Much Maligned
Monsters, History of European Reactions to Indian Art'' - 1977 -
on to a highly documented study of 19th Century Indian art and
its lead into the nationalist movement in ``Art and Nationalism
in Colonial India: 1858-1922'' - 1994.
In the third - and the slimmest volume so far - Mitter, who is
Professor in Art History at the University of Sussex, enters the
sphere of a synoptic view of Indian art. He prefaces the book by
saying that there is a need for reassessing Indian art, for
seeing it outside the Western canon with its ``notions of
progress'' - an idea instilled into Western thought since Vasari.
In the process he attempts a revised nomenclature as it were, of
Indian art history.
The classical textbook division of ancient, early and late
medieval and modern, or Hindu, Buddhist and Jain periods is
somewhat revised. Mitter writes that James Ferguson's description
of Gupta art as the apogee of creativity notwithstanding, it is
an imperative to challenge some of the other damaging
presumptions about Indian art.
For instance, there is the long cherished notion that after the
Guptas Indian art steadily declined into the overly decorative
and the florid - a thesis which tends to look askance at
Khajuraho, Konark and the Bhubhaneshwar temples as emblems of a
decaying art, a theory reinforced by Indian art historians like
Niharranjan Ray.
It is entirely likely that this notion of a decayed art and lost
artistic sensibility suited the British who had convinced
themselves of the `appropriateness' of revising the aesthetic
sensibility of Indians through their own form of education and
then own notions of beauty.
Mitter seeks to redress the balance in favour of Indian values in
art, such as decorativeness, and its wide application for a range
of purposes, such as utensil-making or embroidery, for instance.
Mitter clubs together Buddhist and Hindu architecture in a long
spread from 1700 to 300 BC followed by brief essays on Hindu and
Islamic art and architecture. These are fairly straight well-
documented textbook readings, although Mitter seeks to bring the
reader up to date with newer ideas and formulations in the art
world.
The one that he quotes is the controversy between Vidya Dehejia
and Susan Huntington on whether the aniconic symbols like the
dharmachakra or the tree were purely representative of the Buddha
- an issue that remains unresolved, with Dehejia taking the more
widely accepted position, while Huntington has argued that such
aniconic symbols exist outside the Buddha narrative.
The author devotes smaller sections to `Notions of Beauty' and
eroticism in Indian art, he also raises the old question of why
erotic sculptures adorn holy temple sites - and the overlay of
influence of Bhakti and Tantra on Brahminism. However, the
question around either the obsessive interest in the feminine or
the erotic component of so much Indian art, remain in the broad
area of conjecture.
Mitter writes that most histories of Indian art overemphasise the
Hindu and the Buddhist at the cost of the Islamic. He balances
his own writing by putting in sections of the Sultanate and
Moghul periods. Mitter also raises issues such as the `realism'
of Moghul painting, which though different from the Greek idea of
`mimesis' satisfies a criterion of what constitutes the
realistic.
Certainly this is an area that Indian art historians can develop
to advantage. The realistic portrayal of the courtier in ``The
Dying Inayat Khan'' in which Jahangir ordered his painters to
accurately delineate the courtier's wasting away disease is well-
recorded in the ``Tuzuk-i- Jahangiri''. Again, the accurate
psychological portraits of the 17th Century Moghul court, in the
work of Mir Hashim and Goverdhan, or Bishan Das' highly skilled
portraits of women within the zenana are all examples of realism
as developed in an Indian context.
Deccan painting and the architecture of the Deccani kingdoms is
too briefly discussed, as is Hindu architecture of the medieval
period, such as palaces and forts, even though the North Indian
temples deserve more than a passing reference in such a volume.
What Mitter attempts is to widen the terms of discourse with a
section on the non-canonical arts of tribal peoples, women and
artisans of which he says: ``There is a curious silence in Indian
art history about these groups hidden from history''.
In this sense, a dynastic view of Indian art needs to be replaced
by a more sociological view of people's creative endeavour. He
also talks briefly of craft and jewellery, and indigenous crafts
such as kundan which have been recently foregrounded by the
recent exhibition at the British Museum, ``Treasures of the World
from the Al-Sabah Collection''.
A substantial section of the book is devoted to the impact of the
British Raj and leads thereon to the contemporary period. Partha
Mitter is on sure ground when he writes on the period of his
specialised study, pre-independence nationalist art, to which he
adds a small section on colonial architecture. He also identifies
1922 as the year of the introduction of modernism to India when
on the initiative of Rabindranath Tagore, an exhibition of
Bauhaus artists was held in Calcutta. This leads up to the vital
point about the fact that the modern artist in India could not
resolve the contradiction ``between a modern sense of alienation
and the cultural cohesion expected of a nation engaged in an
anti-colonial struggle''.
This is, in fact, at the crux of some of the conflicts around
Indian modernism and indigenous identity and needs to be
discussed at some length. One may argue here in the small section
of art after independence for the number of artists excluded from
his briefly descriptive roster, including KCS Panikker and his
decisive influence on Southern modernism.
However, in such an extensive period of art history, perhaps
detailing will inevitably receive short shrift. Existing
histories of Indian art, of a comprehensive natural recall J. C.
Harle and A. L. Basham, which have been in circulation for
several decades. After these studies appeared Roy Craven's widely
sold ``Concise History'' which devotes its final chapter to Jain,
Pahari and Rajasthani painting.
Mitter goes beyond right into the contemporary period of India,
with lateral references to Pakistan and Bangladesh thus bringing
the reader upto date on subcontinental rather than only Indian
tendencies. In that sense, this volume serves as a useful
compendium of information of the leading manifestations of the
cross-section of Indian art history.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Features Previous : With a lyrical touch from Kashmir Next : An event to remember | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|