Artist and sculptor

THE LIFE OF FORM IN INDIAN SCULPTURE: Text and photographs by Carmel; Berkson; Abhinav Publications, E- 37, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. Rs. 900.

THOUGH THE Portuguese and British investigators helped in preparing a tentative chronology of Indian sculpture and temple architecture, it is not surprising that they overlooked the Indian metaphysical background and the motivating impulses of the Indian artists and architects, the reason being that they were unfamiliar with a system that was so divergent from their own.

The first concept-oriented approach towards initiating a process of interlinking the collection of data with the organism of Indian metaphysics and ritual came through the efforts of the great art expert, Anand Coomaraswamy. From then the Indian monuments and the sculptures were recognised to be edifices in the service of religion with an abundant textual heritage. Beginning with this, a growing number of scholars have been studying and interpreting the complex body of symbolism as embodied in the monuments and in the relationship of established cults, canons and rituals to the architectural plans.

The present study outlines definite criteria for recognising the intrinsic qualities underlying and immanent in all styles and works of sculpture of major significance, with focus on the inter-relationship amongst artist, statue, temple and devotee.

Meanings are intrinsic in and are to be intuited in the life of forms, for which only the artist can be responsible; the key to what is inherent in form cannot be sought for in the associated texts. The artist's problem is to manipulate his material so that for the perceptive, intuitive devotee, meanings and expressive qualities may be derived from the finished statue itself. In this regard, it would be best not to confuse ideas about the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane with the Indian synchronic approach to human/divine relationship. As a matter of fact, the monuments came into being as a result of the cooperation of the religious establishment with artist, warrior, prince, nobleman and trader - patrons whose natural inclinations were rarely merely profoundly religious. As far as we can gather from the history of Indian sculpture, these patrons had a sophisticated, highly developed discriminatory artistic sensibility and a high regard for the subtleties of form expression.

In Indian architecture and sculpture, the language of form was theoretically the responsibility of the chief architect/designer (sutradhara or sthapati). The actual maker of statues, the sculptor, took his orders, concerning textually related matters, from the chief architect and the acharya. Because of the interdependence of the skills and special talents of all the actors in the temple construction drama, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to judge who, in fact, was ultimately responsible for decisions of great aesthetic import. Many skilled and unskilled men and women were involved in the tremendous endeavour, and even though officially the quality of the monuments was under the control of the chief architect, a good part of the magnificent outcome was ultimately determined by genius. At times, if genius resided in the unlettered sculptor and not in the prime authorities, the contributions might have been attributed to persons in positions of power.

In the final analysis, the artist's contribution was not fundamentally related to or even dependent upon external requirements. He was more often than not swept away by a different voice - that of his own unconscious urgings. All kinds of random imagery, erupting and pouring forth from the unreachable, amorphous depths, sought stabilising external correspondences in matter, thus to create form. If the artist had the courage to stay in touch with the archetypal forces as well as the internal psychic structure, he would proceed to give final form to his kaleidoscopic visions and to create form patterns of an interacting organic nature. As the author states: ``His very life and soul depended on maintaining freedom from bonds of outworn forms and canons.''

Even canonical experts were sometimes aware of the ultimate separation of the creative artist from the metaphysician, the ritualist and the conventional technician. A tension between the codifier and the artist has been detected in a number of texts which instructed the artist ``to be reasonable and befitting, that is, not to depart in his creative delirium, from accepted conventions.'' But as has been proved from records, even in the greatest of statues, these admonitions were often ignored. Even today, attitudes of contemporary sculptors seem to reflect the ancient tensions.

Commenting on the contemporary Viswakarma caste of sculptors of Karnataka, Jan Brouwer observes: ``In sculpture, the brahman (acharya) says that the sculptor merely executes an order, while the sculptor says that he is the brahman who does all the work.''

A sculptor and photographer, the author's well-researched volume has the stored wisdom of his years of involvement with Indian monuments and the photographs (there are 501 illustrations spread over the text) and descriptions are meant to encourage a direct encounter at the sites for which there will be no genuine substitute.

ANJALI SIRCAR

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Customers and employees
Next     : Vaishnava sacred lore