41
cism offen entering fhe bounds of mysficism. ln Rajputana schools
of painfing flourished in Mewar (Udaipur), Malwar, Marwar
(Jodhpur), Bikaner, Amber-Jaipur, Bundi, Kotha, and in Bun
delkhand in fhe Himalayas af Bashohli, Kangra, Kulu, Jammu, efc.
A similar, buf less emphaticaliy populär art developed in Bengal,
Orissa (Cat. 464—466), in fhe Panjab, central India, Maharashtra,
and ofher places. In fhe course of fhe nineteenth Century nearly
all these styles died out, and in its place, since fhe end of fhe
Century, a modern Indian arf has begun Io form, firsf imifating
fhe old styles of archifecture and painfing, then imifating Gupta
arf (fhe Bengal School) in a way similar to our classicism, finally
turning fo modern frends.
Nature and Assessment of Indian Arf
If One wishes to assess Indian arf with justice one must realise
fhat like any ofher form of art, Indian ort has not produced a
very large number of really great masferpieces, buf can öfter a
large number of fine works, a very large quantify of excellent
craftsmanship and even more examples of fypical provincial
Works. It is true fhal Indian wrifings on artisfic theory require
thal fhe master should only creale affer long meditation and
from fhe deepest inspiralion. There are such works, buf fhey can
be counted. In practice it was fhe same as in Europe. Behind fhe
fine words of fhe manifestos there is offen enough only routine,
Work hasfily thrown together, plagiarism and callous mass produc-
tion.
One must also look at fhe works in fheir confext. Very many
pictorial works which we study in isolation in museums once
formed a subordinale part of a large Stupa or femple decorative
scheme. What we see at a shorf distance by reduced light was
once conceived to be looked at from a great distance in glaring
sunshine; what appears to us fo be rough sfonework was once
covered with fine stucco and painted.
False Standards must not be applied to Indian art. Being fhe art
of a fropical counfry, it was in its classic period the conscious
antithesis of ancient Greek and Roman art. Indian arf will be
more justly assessed by baroque Standards, whelher one lakes
Pergamenic sculpture, or Bernini or Rubens. Rubens' exuberantly
powerfui sensualify comes nearest to the Indian ideal of fhe
human figure, while the elegance of the "Grand Siede’ corre-
sponds to the Indian court style. The peak period of fhe Indian
Middle Ages can best be grasped by references to Gothic arf
with its calhedrals — which ol course, in contrasi with Indian art,
Start from the inferior. The mediaeval Ifalians, parficularly fhe
masters of Siena, form a bridge fo Rajpuf arf.
On the ofher hand, we must not simply take the religious lifera-
ture ol India which is known to us as a starting point; it shows
only one aspect ol lite. The same princes who builf huge temples
and fesfitied their reverence tor world-denying monks, lived in
unbounded luxury, maintained great harems and tens of thou-
sands of dancing-girls, invited great courtisans Io their courts,
enjoyed theafer performances, and hunted, in the infervals be-
tween the political intrigues and campaigns which kept ihem
almost continually busy. The middle-class Citizen, foo, offen
regarded his pious dufy as done by reserving his candidalure
tor Salvation to a later lite, meanwhile enjoying the pleasure of
this World and subsequently those of heaven. This was because
Indian religion demands no single decision; the transmigraiion of
Souls permits Salvation to be accomplished in stages; only the
truly pious chose fhe shorlest road. Ancient Indian art is tilied
with fhe joy of living. It has Io be seen between the poles of
acceptance or rejection of lite, the lust tor sensual experience
and power and their renuncialion.
It is, however, as dangerous to attempt a detinition of Indian
art as are all such experimenls designed to squeeze the boundless
wealth of a World of culture info a single formula. All attempts
so far have simply rejected decisive phases as "decadent" and
allowed recognition only to "classic" periods, selecting now art
of the early period, now the Gupta period, now the art of the
Middle Ages. The formula of "mystical" Indian arf holds good
only for the late Gupta period and the Middle Ages, and then
only for religious art. It must of course be admifted that these
ideas had begun to form in earlier times, and that Ihey persisted,
much weakened and wholly re-cast, in the Islamic period as well.
What can best be said aboul Indian art is that it reveals bound
less pleasure in and love for nature and a strong but healthy
sensualify. This explains its musical quality, its dancing rhythm,
its sensitivily to the expression by fhe body of the finest shades
of spiritual meaning. It also explains the strong religious feeling,
the living mythological language. Divinity is experienced in all
fhings, divine love in all experiences. Renunciafion of the worid
does not grow from confempt tor the worid as such but from the
realisation that even all that is most beautifui and glorious is
but a feeble retlecfion of what is divine; but a retlecfion it is,
and its experience bridges the way to divinity.
