Originary Concepts of Classical Indian Art Part I

Originary Concepts of Classical Indian Art Part I: Rupartha –Form and Content

A. Srinivas Rao

30^th May 2012

“Rupam rupam pratirupam bhavati” Rig Veda 6.47.18

“Every form is an image of an original form”.

Head of Buddha, 4th -5th CE Gandhara

Most writing on Indian art tends to gloss over the substantial conceptual basis to its aesthetic foundation, which though not systematic is yet insightful. However Indian aesthetic ideas often spill from literary to performing to plastic art forms and gives rise to what maybe considered synesthetic of a mixture of media and having what some have called an oneiric or dreamlike quality. It is a story that needs to be told with care as it is sometimes dismissed as less intellectually robust than “Western” art. Aesthetics takes as its subject matter beauty and is studied by non artists (as humorously suggested) and as the gag goes “Aesthetics is to artists what ornithology is to birds”. Aesthetics, the content of this subject in India takes its roots from grammar, dramaturgy and literature spilling over into sculpture, architecture and painting and finally into music and dance. Its axial conception is the spectator centric aesthetic experience also called “Rasa” whose translation is loosely “sapience”.  We shall in this essay explore the elements of “Form and Content” or “Rupa-artha”, and reserve the complex idea of “Rasa” for another essay.

The Buddha, 5th CE Gupta Period

Before we jump into the understanding of ‘form’ in Indian art, we must bear in mind the considerable debate on whether the primacy of our aesthetic sensibility is shaped by image or text. In the ‘West’ the tension arises historically from the visuality of the Greek sensibility, aggressively contested by the iconoclasm and textual primacy of the Judaic tradition. All experience is mediated by language and thus language is constitutive of our world declared an Indian poet Bhratrihari (5^th CE). This is referred to as ‘logocentrism’ and it is only in the past two decades with the proliferation of visual production that there has been a call for an iconic turn to de-centre the primacy of the logos (word). In India the traditional tension emerges with the visual and aesthetic vocabulary borrowed almost wholly from texts, which we shall presently examine. While some scholars like Stella Kramrisch have maintained that “India thinks in images”, or Tagore’s observation “Man is a maker of forms”, it is surprising how the aesthetic theory in plastic arts in India is entirely based on literary notions. The chief among these is the homology between ‘form and content’ in art captured by Indian theorists as a parallelism between a ‘word and its meaning’. The relationship between the word (sabda) and its meaning (artha) is according to Hindu thinkers eternal and not merely a social convention as the Buddhists had maintained. Kalidasa had even more famously referred to the union between the male and female principles of consciousness and matter (parvati parameswarau) as akin to that between a word and its meaning (vakarthavivasampratau). In some senses it was this idea that still casts its shadow of antiquity in the relationship between a form and its content. It is likely that this deep union of form and content makes resistant the Indian sensibility to pursue a pure formalism (a pursuit of form at the expense of content - the object or idea being represented) in art (or for that matter a pure expressionism (a pursuit of a subjective reality with no obvious reference to form than radically distorting it)). Ironically both formalism and expressionism were literary movements in Europe before they became movements in painting, reinforcing the argument for logocentrism.

Navakunjara,  Odisha, Patachitra, contemporary folk

The quotation from the Rik Veda at the beginning of this essay indicates the conundrum that if every form is an image of the original, (and that original is the image of yet another original) then it is an infinite regress begging the question what is the First Form? This primordial form in the Vedic text is posited as the “Purusha” or cosmic being. The Purusha Sukta verses claim that the Purusha was immanent in all forms encompassing all that was manifest (sahasra shirsha purushaha sahasra paat, sa bhumin vishvatovritva,) and yet was also transcendent (atyatishtha dasangulam) beyond by more than a span. This Purusha made manifest the universe by sacrificing himself unto himself in the great altar that was also himself. This was the bridge between the microcosm and macrocosm, between man and the universe and according to the Vedic vision is enacted out in the Vedic sacrifice. If proportion is the essence of form, then the bridge between the individual and the universe is made possible by building the sacrificial altar in the dimensions of the sacrificer (yajamana). Thus if all forms emerge from the Purusha the sacrificer’s dimensions approximate the Purusha and reinforce their identity.  It follows that the ideal then is an approximation of what is visible. This is the basic idea of form as the Hindu mind understands it. It is also deeply textually grounded. Rupa or form in the Hindu tradition is the anthropomorphic image of the Purusha. The first sculptor of forms in the Indian tradition is a potter (adi shipli) making the sacrificial altar bricks, arising from the folk (desi) tradition unlike the classical (margi) traditions. The Vedic art was largely aniconic, grounded in the metaphysics and texts of the margi and manifest as the sacrificial altar (Vedi). It was the desi who invented forms which were then formalised by the margi as a canon. This vibrant exchange between the two traditions is prevalent in every aspect of Indian art and life. As Ashish Nandy observes in his contrast between two of twentieth century’s great icons Gandhi and Tagore; Gandhi lifted the desi traditions to the level of classicism (margi) granting them voice and legitimacy while Tagore made earthy the classical traditions by mingling them into the desi forms. The margi tradition began with the idea that the human form was the most perfect of forms that harmonised the macro and microcosm. “Man is indeed well made (purusho vava sukrutam)” said the Vedic text Aitreya Upanishad. This accounts for the proliferation of the human form in all classical Indian art, and its resonance with the cosmic Purusha is the inspiration (pratibha) of the artist.

This prompts us to ask the question of what is the basis of such a conception of form and in particular the human form. In other words, is the human form thus to be viewed from an empirical standpoint or a more intuitive standpoint? The elements of form include, line, movement, tonality, colour, texture, etc.  The Vastu Sutra Upanishad an obscure and late text that was interpolated into the Vedic corpus and purportedly composed by Pippalada, elaborates on line and form. It states that form has a purpose and a meaning and that men divine nature through form. It further states that it is through form that sacrifice originates in the world. Rupa to Pippalada is no ordinary form but an ideal that leads to enjoyment (pritih) and delectation (pramodah).  It goes on to elaborate that line (rekha) is the cause of form and that line conveys emotion. He classifies lines by their direction and as portraying energy, gravity and longing.

 Siva Chola Bronze, Thanjavur 11th CE

Vatsyayana (4^th -6^th CE) the editor of the Kamasutra has enumerated six elements of form or rupa viz. proportion (pramana), perception (rupa bheda), emotion (bhava), grace (lavanya yojana) semblance to reality (sadrishya) proficiency with materials and instruments (varnikabhanga). We shall examine two of the more important ones i.e. proportion and semblance to reality as these also happen to be viewed as a plea to empiricism and realism by apologists of Indian art. Proportions (pramana) were the ground of rupa, and harmony in proportions reflected (pratibimb) an organic unity in the cosmic Purusha. Proportion was to the artist not merely measurements but more importantly harmony and rhythm. Pramana thus was not based on the study or mimesis of empirical forms but sought to capture an inner beauty. These were then codified by the margi traditions as canons of iconometry (image measurements). The human form in art has followed diverse conventions in balancing empiricism and aesthetic sensibility; for example Greek norms embodied in canons for the human figure such as those of Polyclitus etc. Indian iconometric canons included those of Varahamihira, Brihatsamhita, Pratima Lakshana, Vikhanasagama, Matsyapurana, Sukraniti Sara etc. For example as classic human types, the “nyagrodha parimandala” or ‘Banyan’ type was one where like the Vitruvian Man; the height of the body equalled the outstretched mid finger tips as diameters of a circle. The Matsyapurana idealised the human proportions of nine “talas” from head tip to toes with arms reaching the knees (ajanubahu). Modelling of features was to be based on an idealised form of youthfulness of a sixteen year old (shodashi), with full fleshy limbs that masked musculature, joints and veins, which were not considered auspicious. Sadrishya or semblance to reality was in a similar vein not an empirical realism but a ‘felt’ inner experience or intuition rather than objective ‘seen’ fact. Sadrishya was supposed to capture the essential nature of an object i.e. its inner reality or swadharma. Sadrishya was understood therefore at three levels of correlation i.e. between the aesthetic form and intrinsic nature of an object, between the rupa and the intuitive vision of the artist, and between rupa and the ideal form of Purusha.

Nataraja, Chola Bronze, Tiruvalagadu 10th -11th CE

 “Hetum tadakaram” or “Form indeed has a reason (or purpose and a meaning)” says the Vishnu Dharmottarapurana (2^nd CE) which describes the qualities of icons (pratimalakshana) and also elaborates the first Indian text on painting i.e. Chitra Sutra. As Tagore puts it more eloquently “Idea craves to be embodied in form and form seeks release in an idea”.  Meaning conveyed through form or the nature of content of an art object has a complex treatment in Indian thought as it wholly borrows its ideas from linguistics and poetics. If the word (sabda) is homologous to form then meaning of the word (artha) is similar to content of an art object. Hindu epistemology or theory of knowledge takes perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumana) and verbal testimony (sabda) as means of knowledge (pramana), then sabda or form goes beyond mere epistemic function to one of experience (anubhava). Thus sabda or form propels itself to meaning (artha). Meaning itself has two dimensions, it implies on one hand use, utility, aim, value, and secondly as substance, inherent nature or essence. Hindu thought maintained that the word-meaning relationship exists a priori (prior to an utterance). In the Indian poetic (alamkarika) tradition, a word has three levels of meaning the denotative (abidha) or the literal or lexical, the associative or metaphorical (lakshana), and the evocative or suggestive (vyanjana). The first level is the direct meaning (sakshatartha) and is accessed by direct perception (pratyaksha) of an art object, and the next two levels are indirect meaning (parokshartha) which are accessed by inference (anumana). (In some senses the epistemic and experiential functions of sabda get reduced to pratyaksha and anumana). Meaning foregrounds the level appropriate to the context and resonates with the context. The meaning of an art object thus emerges from the resonance with its form and its denotative, metaphoric and evocative levels. We shall call this resonance a special feature in Indian art theory called Dhvani (which we shall examine in another essay). The unit of meaning and analysis is not just word meaning (sabdartha) but more importantly sentence meaning (vakyartha) and is derived from context and not independently. In the hermeneutic tradition of the Vedas words were held together by expectancy (akanksha), appropriateness (yogyata), and contiguity (sannidhi) deriving the context. Thus the indirect meaning (lakshana and vyanjana) emerges from the context, thereby re-vivifying the meaning from merely the obvious. We shall conclude the idea of content with reference to another idea from the grammarian Bhartrihari (5^th CE, he also maintained that the sentence and not word ought to be the unit of analysis of meaning, composing his famous work the Vakyapadiya) called efflorescence or “sphota”.  Sphota is blossoming or efflorescence and is synonymous with ‘logos’ or ‘innate idea’. “It is the transcendent ground where spoken syllables and conveyed meaning are united as a whole”. Sphota lies submerged as undifferentiated consciousness as the principle of logos (sabdatattwa) and is then called as para, it then emerges as undifferentiated speech or pashyanti, progressing further to remain united as sabda and artha and is called madhyama, and then blossoms forth as audible speech or vaikhari. In the same way the perception of an art object progresses from an inchoate idea in consciousness of the artist and while being articulated blossoms forth as a manifest form. The inspiration (pratibha) of the artist is embedded in her subconscious and manifests in unique ways. However what is important in this theory is that the manifest audible sound (nada) or the art object is merely a carrier or a symbol that is then decoded by the listener or experiencer as the aesthete and in ways the inspiration (pratibha) of the experiencer finds meaning.  To Bhartrihari language (or art object in our case) does not merely convey its own form (grahyatva) but also conveys the object (grahakatva). Sphota is then the ultimate repository of meaning moving from thought to intuition (manas to pratibha) of the artist to that of the aesthete, preserving the unity of form and content as a whole, making possible levels of meaning viz. formal, sensual, structural, and ultimate meaning.