Name :- Chandra Prakash Dixit

Roll no. :- 2368

Subject :- SEC assignment

Question :- Historiography of Indian Art- orientalist, nationalist and the making of Indian art .

Answer :-

The historiography of Indian art and architecture stretches a long frame and therefore the perception
and position of Indian art and architecture does not remain static. Parul Pandhya Dhar in her article
“A History of Art History” explores this transition by bringing the viewpoint of westerners, Orientalist
canon and nationalist scholars. She also highlights the evolution of style, material, historical contexts,
patterns of patronage, representation of gender, study of iconography and changing perspective
throughout the timeline.

One of the foremost developments in the field of Indian history and culture was the establishment of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 by William Jones. It laid the foundation of understanding India’s
enriching past. However, there were several shortcomings. First, for William Jones architecture was
merely “monuments of antiquity and not specimens of art”. Second, art and architecture at this
period, received attention merely from regional aspects as they enabled us to understand the
geography, history, customs, languages, literature, and folklore of a people. Industries like
‘handicraft’ or ‘manufacture’ of Indian art only evoked British interest, primarily because they were of
economic interest.

Some individual initiatives were also taken up like Colin Mackenzie translated the inscriptions and
manuscript. He also prepared detailed maps of some southern Indian sites and documented the
Amravati Stupa. Even several traditional Indian scholars played an important role in unravelling
India’s past like Ram Raz, Rajendralala Mitra nevertheless their work remained detached from the
monument centric approach to Indian art and architecture. Description of ancient and medieval Indian
monuments had been part of the travelogues of European travellers. Paintings of artists such as
William Hodges and the Daniells had visual representation of India’s culture and heritage. Picturesque
views of Indian monuments were one of the favourite subjects that were painted, published, and
displayed at exhibitions in Europe . The visuals had hence become an important tool for analysing and
interpreting the Cultural and historical construction during the British colonial period .

It was only by the 19th century, the methodological study of Indian architecture had begun. It Was due
to the efforts of James Fergusson and Alexander Cunningham. While the former Started a systematic
study of Indian architectural history, the latter laid the foundations of Indian archaeology by
establishing the Archaeological survey of India in 1861. On one hand, Cunningham’s extensive
emphasis on excavations, field and archival documentation systems Made the base of archaeology
stronger, while on the other hand Fergusson read the Monument to its last detail and treated the
monument as “the most reliable source of cultural Interpretation”. Fergusson also attempted to
understand Indian architecture in a global Context and through the comparative method. For him,
Indian architecture along with Egyptian, Classical Greek was “true” representations of stylistic art as
compared to the ‘imitative’ styles seen during the revival of the Classical and the Gothic in Europe.
Such Analysis’s, macro surveys and comparative approach; with Lithographs, drawings, and
Photographs, helped in creating more precise and insightful documentation, unlike preceding
Centuries which focused only on “picturesque”.

However both Fergusson and Cunningham believed in the superiority of Western aesthetics,
Techniques, and canons. The orientalised outlook led them to categorize the material remains Of
India’s past within colonial constructs. While Cunningham classified objects as ‘IndoGrecian,’ ‘Indo-
Scythian,’ and ‘Indo-Sassanian’, reflecting the prejudice that existed About the derivative nature of
Indian art. Ferguson adopted racial and religious classifications Of the art periods and styles by
terming them as Aryan, non-aryan, Buddhist, hindu, jain, Muhammadan. The usage of race and
religion portrays the narrow perspective of the Orientalist towards Indian art and architecture where
“The yardstick for judgement was Always ‘Western’. Fergusson’s approach was continued by his
successors, James Burgess, Henry Cousens, Alexander Rea, A.H. Longhurst, and Percy Brown. In
addition, the Orientalist writings neglected the usage of Indian texts and contexts in interpreting
Indian art And architecture. This resulted in the obviously incorrect speculations about the origins and
Derivations of Indian architectural forms, such as the ‘origin’ of the Indian temple from the Buddhist
stupa.

In contrast to the orientalised understanding of Indian art and architecture, the nationalist Historians
perceived Indian art and architecture in a much broader sense. Babu Rajendra lal Mitra was one of
the first nationalist who contested against the hegemony of European Understanding. Though he was
trained in accordance to Western terms of reference and Greco-Roman standards, nevertheless, his
works like on the antiquities of Orissa and Bodhgaya, reflected his acute awareness of the regional
context of Eastern Indian artistic Manifestations. It was due to his effort that perception of art and
architecture from a regional Point of view was given importance.

Despite all these periodic contributions and achievements, the formative years of Indian art History
had to tackle several problems. Historians like Upinder Singh and Gautam Sengupta Highlighted that
the common perception towards history, archaeology, and art history was that They were considered
allied disciplines. This prevented art and archaeology from developing As an individual subject. Beside
issues like ‘region’ versus the ‘nation’, ‘Orientalist’ verses The ‘Nationalist’ continued. Adjacent to all
these problems was the question of Indian Sculpture. Not only were they viewed through the lens of
classical Western standard but the Representation in terms of presence of many heads and multiple
arms of divinities, animalheaded gods, explicitly sexual scenes on temple walls evoked several
derogatory responses to Indian art. The lack of ‘realism’ or ‘naturalism’ further degraded the position
of Indian Sculpture. Though abstract patterns and architectural ornament were still valued in
Comparison to figural sculpture, nevertheless sculpture and painting did not gain favour as ‘fine art’
until the early decades of the twentieth century.

The systematic analysis of Indian sculpture began only after A. Foucher made a study of Gandhara
sculptures. It was natural for Gandharan art to receive attention as they reaffirmed The idea of Indian
long standing surviving culture. Following foucher, Lolita Nehru refined The detailed study of
Gandhara. Other scholars like Ludwig Bachhofer also analyzed the Stylistic development of Indian
sculpture from Bharhut, Sanchi, and Amaravati.
The nationalist interpretation challenged colonial prejudices and tried to figure out the ‘Indian-ness’
of Indian art. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy was one of the first nationalist to oppose the orientalist
constructions. By using textual sources like vedic and post vedic texts, Buddhist and Jain literature,
treaties on art and architecture, epigraphic and numismatic Sources he linked text with visuals;
attempting to free Indian art and architecture from Colonial prejudices. He brought forward the
metaphysical, religious, and symbolic Underpinnings of Indian art and architecture. There were other
scholars like Stella Kramrisch, Heinrich Zimmer and Ratan Parimoo who were inclined towards
knowing the origins, Meanings, and motivations of Indian art.With the usage and interpretation of
the textual Sources, there was a steady increase in the study of Indian art and architecture. It not only
led To more focused and detailed study of iconography, iconometry, terminology, principles of
Architecture, and canons of painting but also expanded the discovery of Indian artistic Heritage.

By the second half of the 2oth century, there was further enhancement in the study of Indian Art and
architecture from its regional point of view. Several regional architectural texts were Uncovered by
scholars like Ram Raz, Manmohan Ganguli, N.K. Bose, P.K. Acharya, and N.V. Mallaya and
interpretation at a more local and traditional level had begun.The writings Of K.R. Srinivasan , M.A.
Dhaky and M.W. Meister were some of the notable works which Analysed the texts in relation to the
temple architecture. Their efforts led to the development Of Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple
Architecture (EITA) project.

Along with the interpretation of the text in understanding the art and architecture, Understanding the
symbolic meaning of the iconographies also began. Unlike the nineteenth And early twentieth century
which was marked by misinterpretation of Indian sculpture and Icons, this period witness “culture-
specific readings of the meanings embedded in Indian Images”. While Gopinath Rao used the sastras,
puranas, agamas, tantras to understand the Images of Hindu deities, Benoytosh Bhattacharya relied
on Buddhist iconographic texts like Sadhanamala and Nispanna yogavali to comprehend Buddhist
iconography. Even Jain Iconographies were studied by scholars like B.C. Bhattacharya, Jyotindra Jain,
Eberhard Fischer and most importantly Umakant P. Shah. Non- canonical literature like classical
Sanskrit poetry was also included in the domain of textual references for interpreting Iconography and
it was done by C. Sivaramamurti. The diverse interpretation and sources (hindu, Buddhist, jain,
Sanskrit poetry) highlights the growing development of art and architecture from its primitive stage.
The unravelling of such complex imagery has also Paved the way for more comprehensive approaches
to the interpretation of the icon in Indian Art.

Several works have also been taken to understand the social dimensions of Indian art (The Artists’
identity, role, status, organization, and migrations in relation to patrons) several Noteworthy works
are done by scholars like S.Settar, R.N. Misra etc tried to study the Journeys of the artist who had left
their mark on their creations. All these along with throwing The light on the lives of the craftsmen also
highlighted the intense competition, rivalries, and Claims of supremacy among artists in search of
prestige and patrons. These measures vastly Improved the understanding about the cultural society of
India.

The 20th century also saw issues of gender being addressed. Vidya Dehejia was the first to Question
the issue of ‘gaze,’ ‘representation,’ ‘agency,’ women artists, male sexuality, Spectatorship and
femininity. Devangana Desai studied the rationale, context, and function of Erotic sculptures on
religious monuments like the tantra paintings. Seema Bawa also Addressed the “gender neutral”
stance in mainstream Indian art historical studies from Bharhut and Amaravati sculptures. Even the
subject of gender in Harappa art is also now Studied from archaeology, anthropology, and art
perspective. Though these gendered readings Surface many aspects of Indian art and architecture
nevertheless the subject of gender is still An undiscovered field in Indian history.

Another major improvement in the archaeological sector was the establishment of The Architectural
Survey of Temples within the Archaeological Survey in 1955-56. They aimed to Look after the regional
characteristics of the temple through “extensive fieldwork and Intensive examination of the data
collected there from.” Micro-nuance studies of temples Began when M.A. Dhaky analysed the Maru-
Gurjara architecture of Western India from its Antecedents – the ‘MahäMaru’ and ‘Mahä-Gurjara.
Scholars like Joanna G. William Highlighted the regional peculiarity of northern India during the
period of Gupta dominance. Similarly the study of this temple architecture on a regional and
chronological basis was done by Krishna Deva, K.R. Srinivasan, , K.V. Soundararajan, S.R.
Balasubrahmanyam, S.K.Saraswati, R.D. Banerji and others.

The architectural historians also moved beyond archaeological reporting, surveys, and
documentation. They started studying: formalistic and stylistic analyses, chronological reassessments,
ritualistic studies, iconological considerations, issues of patronage and power, artists and artisans, a
revaluation of temple aesthetics, which have considerably helped in broadening the scope.

The history of Indian paintings has also evolved. Initially it was Ajanta and Mughal paintings which
remained in focus. However, gradually South Indian mural paintings, Rajasthani and Pahari
miniatures, paintings of the Western and Eastern Indian manuscript traditions, and Ladakhi paintings
also started receiving attention. Works of Scholars like Kramrisch, C. Sivaramamurti , Moti Chandra
and Karl Khandalavala, Pramod Chandra, Anand Krishna (1973), and B.N. Goswamy has contributed
immensely to studies in the sstyle connoisseurship, and context of other regional and diverse
paintings.

One of the major shifts in the Indian paintings was the shift in the perception of Ajanta paintings.
Earlier the focus remained only on general identifications of the subject matter and minutiae of dress,
costumes, and ornaments. However with the coming in of scholars like Ghulam Yazdani, the study of
Ajanta was enhanced to a great point. He introduced photographic documentation, inscriptional
notices, detailed identification of subject-matter, intricacies of technique and ornamentation and
developed a chronological framework for the study of Ajanta paintings. The focus was also shifted
towards material culture as visualized in Ajanta paintings by M.K.Dhavalikar. Moreover, Dieter
Schlingloff’s intensive research on Ajanta paintings led to a revision in the identification and
interpretation of several jätaka narratives. Walter Spink extensive research on Ajanta revealed the
chronology and political and historical backdrop of the paintings. He also highlighted the interrelated
aspects of architecture, sculpture and paintings in Ajanta paintings. Even efforts were taken to rethink
the historiography f the Mughal painting by several scholars like Ursula Weekes, Ebba Koch. All this
have helped in moving from Eurocentric approach of Indian art and architecture.
The study of Indian art and architecture was deeply enhanced with the coming in of digital
Technology. Initially, the folios of paintings of a single manuscript were scattered in different
Museums and private collections, which made it difficult to access all together. However, With the
digital turn, the access and frontiers of knowledge is extended. Not only scattered Follies can be
digitally reassembled but also comparative analysis can be made. Such Methodology also increases
research on Indian miniature and manuscript traditions.

To conclude, the historical construct and cultural interpretation of Indian art and architecture Has
evolved a lot since its beginning. Throughout the time period, a transition can be seen in Terms of
perception, development, style and methods. This is a great achievement for the History of Indian art
and architecture; however a thrust to move forward should always exist So that the field of Indian art
and architecture can thrive more..