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  Bundelkhand ­
  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  production.

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’  corresponds
  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  liferature
  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  thousands
  of  dancing-girls,  invited  great  courtisans  Io  their  courts,
enjoyed  theafer  performances,  and  hunted,  in  the  infervals  between
  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  boundless ­
  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.