Abstract
This volume emerged out of a conference on the theme ‘Historiography of Indian Art: Emergent Methodological Concerns’, organized in 2006 by the National Museum Institute of History of Art, Conservation and Museology, New Delhi. There are fifteen essays in this collection, the longest being the introductory essay by Dhar.
Many of the concerns raised by the editor in this introduction have been voiced before over the past three decades, the most notable articulations being in the works of Pramod Chandra, M.A. Dhaky and Tapati Guha Thakurta. What is useful about Dhar’s introduction is that it puts together a lot of the historiographical material available in one place, making this essay a compulsory reading for students of Indian art history. Themes related to art and society, artists and patronage, connoisseurship, gender dimensions and regional studies indicate the diversity and richness of the field. Others related to colonial interpretations, institutionalization of the documentation and analysis of art and architecture, texts and images are over-worked areas and could have been cut down a bit. Also, too much elaboration in sub-theme titles, for instance, ‘Studies in Indian Painting and Sculpture: Style, Connoisseurship, Iconography, Narrative, Representation and Spectatorship’, leaves one with the feeling after reading the text that some of these issues have not been discussed at all or that it is done inadequately. What I found novel stylistically is the integration of the articles in the volume with the different themes instead of the traditional approach of having a discussion on chapters at the end of the introduction.
There are two other essays that look critically at the discipline of art history: Kapila Vatsyayan’s analysis of the multidisciplinary nature of art history and Himanshu Prabha Ray’s critique of the simplistic understanding of religious identity on the basis of art history. Vatsyayan’s lucid and penetrating analysis of why the field of art and art history has to be separated from other disciplines is convincing (Chapter 2: 33–46). Her critique of categorization of art as classical/great and folk/little as resulting in the large corpus of tribal art being treated as the peripheries of the ‘Indian mono-culture’ is well taken. She also rightly reminds us that scholars such as Stella Kramrisch used the interesting category of dateless and dated art to refer to tribal and institutional art forms. Her plea is to use contemporary practice to illumine the past as well as to use a cross cultural analysis in lieu of a narrow focus. The discussion on the relation between texts and art/architecture, symbolism, grids and geometry of underlying form, and individuality and anonymity of the creators of art raise several important issues for those in the field. Ray’s article is more critical of the way the discipline of art history has unquestioningly accepted colonial constructs related to chronology, style and identity of art and architecture. Amply substantiated by evidence, Ray argues against the labelling of particular forms such as the apsidal temple as Buddhist, or indeed to posit a lineal development, in terms of origins and decline, of religious monuments as Buddhist, Jaina, Hindu, Islamic, etc. Questions of take-over and conflict/confrontation, she argues, have been emphasized at the expense of direct evidence of sharing and expansion of a religious monument over time (pp. 198–99). The last section on the Asian milieu in this essay seems to stick out because rather than raising substantive issues there is more of a historiographical narration of how the linkage between Southeast Asia and India has been understood. Also, a disturbing element Ray raises relates to cultural memory, and brings up the question of whether the privileging of cultural memory should be at the expense of historical context? Such assertions are not new but have largely stemmed from political agendas and we need to be wary of any ahistorical reading of such memories as the Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhumi controversy has shown us.
There are three essays that focus on pioneers in the field of art history and locate their historical context and intellectual influences. Upinder Singh’s study of ‘Archaeologists and Architectural Scholars in Nineteenth Century India’ focuses on the career and works of Alexander Cunningham (1814–93). In ‘Rajendralala Mitra and the Formative Years of Indian Art History’, Gautam Sengupta discusses the significance of Mitra’s contributions to the systematic study of art and architecture. Ratan Parimoo looks at ‘Stella Kramrisch’s Approach to Indian History’, generally in terms of the larger Vienna school of art and more particularly, individual influences on her ideas. The first two dovetail with each other as seen from the engagement of the scholars under discussion with issues of accuracy of description, chronology and phases of artistic development, external influences and stylistic differences. An interesting anecdote in Singh’s essay relates to her finding of an Armenian engineer J.D.M. Beglar’s copy in a library of James Fergusson’s racist and virulent attack on Mitra in his book Archaeology in India with Especial Reference to the Works of Babu Rajendralala Mitra. Beglar’s notes alongside the text are a testimony to the kind of politics at play in the late nineteenth century with regard to the newly established Archaeological Survey of India, which spilled over into the academic realm as well. Sengupta’s analysis of Mitra’s ideas demonstrates the influence of Victorian ideas on him, such as realism (or its lack) in the depiction of the body, but also was imbued with a patriotic fervour to place at the forefront the lost grandeur and civilizational advancement of India. Parimoo’s essay on Kramrisch traces the intellectual roots of her ideas from thinkers such as Heinrich Zimmer, Georg W.F. Hegel, Max Dvorak and shows that her deep understanding of the twining of the material and spiritual in plastic art comes from here. The last part on ‘Studies in Indian Sculpture in the Post-1950 Period’ seems out of place because it merely describes some of the scholarship in this period that appears to bear the stamp of Kramrisch’s scholarship or deviates from it.
Two essays on artisans fill in a much neglected area of art history by focusing not so much on elite patrons or texts but on the people who were involved, literally hands-on, with the work of art. S. Settar studies ‘Early Indian Artists: c. 300 BCE–200 CE’ in terms of the need for specialists, techniques and knowledge involved, mobility of these specialists and the support that they gained from the ruling and other elite sections of society. The earliest artists according to Settar were the composers of inscriptions, the sculptors/stone-cutters and scribe-engravers. While some scholars had seen the engraver as no more than an illiterate who simply carved out what was first written on the stone, the author points to an Asokan edict that suggests the engravers were literate and knowledgeable (p. 90). An important point relates to the mobility of these early artists—Chapada, the first known artist in South Asian sources, is believed to have migrated to Karnataka from the Kharosthi speaking areas of north western India. There are other instances of movements such as that of the Yonaka artists from the Kamboja–Gandhara areas to the northwest and eastern India. The spread of Prakrit language and Brahmi script is also seen as a result of such mobility of artists. The question of the knowledge of artists is elucidated with examples from Buddhist texts that show the master-artists/sutradhara, and in some cases the image makers/rupakara, were well versed in the Buddhist scripture Suttapitaka (p. 93). The knowledge of more than one language and script is also known to us, as in the case of Taxila-based artists but Settar disagrees with the view that this suggested inter-marriages or Greek descent of the artists. Finally, the discussion on the navakarmis or master architects in the post-Mauryan period indicates the status and wealth of a section of artists. However, some controversial points in this analysis relates to assumptions about Harappan antecedents of local/regional artisans, and about the purists versus innovators among artists. There is neither any indication of the source of such ideas, nor how to distinguish between categories. R.N. Misra’s work on ‘Ancient Indian Artists: Organizations in Lieu of Guilds’ looks at conglomerates of artists that do not fall in the category of guilds but are ‘semi-corporate’ in character. He finds in the use of terms such as gharanas (household/clans?) and ganas/prakrti/gosthi (guilds), the presence of hierarchies suggesting an institutionalized ordering of artists, and the better known artists acclaimed through status marking titles. Misra, whose expertise in this area is acknowledged, further draws our attention to the possibilities of upward mobility of artists and the inter-relationship between them across generations. A third essay on social dimensions of art is Seema Bawa’s ‘Gender in Early Indian Art: Tradition, Methodology and Problematic’; although, the focus is on representation rather than on those engaged in the production. The first part on historiography of gender and art in ancient India is too well known to have needed repetition here, and some of it is superfluous to Bawa’s theme. The discussion of two Jataka stories throws open possibilities related to composition, but unfortunately the primary question related to engendering seems inadequately addressed.
The rest of the essays seem to be specific case studies, and as such cannot be neatly bracketed together. Two articles on painting by Mandira Sharma and Ursula Weekes focus on Ajanta and Mughal paintings, respectively. Sharma’s ‘Disquisitions on the Paintings of Ajanta’ discusses the writings of nineteenth century art aficionado John Griffiths, the principal of the newly established J.J. School of Art in Mumbai; Ghulam Yazdani’s comprehensive four volume Ajanta: The Colour and Monochrome (1930–55); M.N. Deshpande’s historical contextualizing of the Ajanta paintings and caves in his essays; M.K. Dhavalikar’s analysis of the everyday and elite culture represented in Ajanta art, etc. One is left with the feeling that this piece has simply been lifted out of a thesis, although any historiography that simply describes individual contributions without making any connections leaves one dissatisfied. In that sense, Weekes presents a more sophisticated historiographical analysis of the European connections with imperial Mughal painting. She rightly argues that rather than focusing only on the textual sources, notwithstanding their eloquence, it is essential to study the paintings themselves as visual texts indicative of cultural influences and inspiration in form and content. She is particularly appreciative of the writings of Ebba Koch, Gauvin Bailey and Sanjay Subrahmanyam in this regard, who have brought out the largely one-way artistic flow from Europe, although this asymmetrical exchange in the words of Subrahmanyam does not take away the binding together of the two cultures and their connected histories (p. 175). Very broad ranging in its sweep, this essay brings together a rich corpus of works on the subject, locating the context of the authors and the limitations in their methodology and analyses. An important critique raised by the author is the marginalizing of the study of the visual sources in the Mughal period in mainstream academia, and the presence of a niche, albeit marginalized, research space within museums and private collections.
Dhar’s essay on ‘Understanding “Jaina Art” of Karnataka: Shifting Perspectives’ brings to the fore studies on particular sites such as Sravana Belgola, iconographic studies, textual evidence on Jaina art, monuments and their art, and specific philosophical and doctrinal ideas revealed through a study of art. M.K. Dhavalikar’s study of Harappan Art presents shifts in archaeological method and theory, and relates the evidence available from the Harappan context to the various approaches—hermeneutic/middle range, ethno-archaeology, cognitive and contextual archaeology. I am not an archaeologist, and I will leave it to those in the field to examine the analyses here. But the discussion on ethno-archaeology connects the findings of headless female figurines from Inamgaon in Maharashtra with ‘a few examples from Late Harappan and even urban levels’, which are all identified with the goddess Sakambhari praised in the Markandeya Purana, which is further tied to the cult tradition of Palghat among the Warlis of Thana in Maharashtra. There are too many connections tied together, and the evidence is too flimsy to justify these linkages. Yes, there are possibilities here, but to categorically assert such connections is problematic to say the least.
Christian Luczanits throws light on the methodologies and techniques necessary to study linkages between historic Indian and Indo-Tibetan sculpture (Chapter 11). The last piece, a photo-essay on the Agra and Delhi forts at important junctures of colonial assertion (1857 revolt and 1903 Coronation Durbar, respectively), beautifully pieces together rare photos of the time with pages from a private journal and some official documents of the time. The self-conscious British ownership of these historic monuments, the transformation of parts such as the Diwan-i-Khas to provide comforts to the colonial occupants, and the destruction of ramparts that were seen as weakening the defences of the colonial armies stationed there are discussed. What is absolutely striking are the lovely photographs that reveal more graphically than any text the author’s concerns about the callousness of the state in tinkering with pre-modern art and architecture with no concern for aesthetic and cultural sensitivity. As the journal writer in the Agra Fort in 1857, Mrs Coopland, revealingly writes:
One almost wonders that the ghosts of the ancient Moguls and Sultans did not start from their graves in horror and amazement at the desecration of all their sacred temples and beautiful halls and palaces, which were being defiled by being turned into cooking and sleeping places by the ‘cursed Kaffir’: indeed no pen can adequately describe the metamorphosis. (p. 217)
Joachim K. Bautze needs to be congratulated for locating a testimony to this vandalism in the form of photographs.
When one is dealing with a volume as large as this, one perforce focuses on some essays more than others, highlights particular issues rather than all, and gives up in the long haul trying to find links among the various contributions. However, the editor, Parul Pandya Dhar has to be commended for providing space to a range of themes that reveal the varied facets of the discipline of art history, from the time of its institutionalization, to the present times. While the size of the book and its layout (a page having two columns) is a little annoying, the 50-odd images at the end are a feast for the eyes. I would recommend this work to not merely the specialist art historian, but also to historians in general.