Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

To summarise Berkson’s observations: the Pallava panel was created at a later date than the Greek sarcophagus; both panels portray a war scene with a woman in the lead and show similar composition and formal structure; the way individual figures have been depicted in both creations allows parallels.

Berkson’s assertions take root in her point that as there are no sculptures of a similar complexity within India, only Greek sculpture or sculptors could have inspired the work at Mamallapuram. But this is incorrect as the Amaravathi statues created by the Satavahanas date back to A.D. 150. This proves that there were pieces of sculpture created earlier and of a degree of greater complexity than the Greek piece in question.

Cultural exchanges between two societies or races that differ in terms of the environment, religion, governments and social structure have taken place when one society or race is dominant or when one of the two is open to new influences. There has been a Greek influence in India with Greek travellers visiting India as traders and officers. But their sphere of influence was limited as they did not get across to the people and rulers. Hence, it is safe to conclude that they could not have compelled or influenced Indian sculptors to adopt their ideas and way of thinking.

Research shows that while the Western art tradition has led its artists to replicate with great accuracy whatever was seen, artists of the Eastern tradition have channelled into their art what they have felt with their senses and feelings. Since A.D. 200, there has been only a trace of the Greek style within European art. Moreover, it is a documented fact that Europe could boast of a renaissance in art only in A.D. 1200.

Let us move on to a critique. Let us first look at the sequencing of forms. An example is the set of rock paintings near Karikkiyur in the Nilgiris. These paintings were created by tribals in the era before Christ (Picture 1). In Picture 1, the path followed by the row of warriors is indicated by a long basal line. This may have been a technique used by the artist to prevent the figures depicted from appearing to float against the background and give them a definite sequence. Similar to the one in the Amazonmachy, the sequence here is a parallel one. Picture 2 shows horses and warriors appearing to leap around over the entire field to depict the emotion of war. But unlike in Picture 1, there is no use of a basal line to indicate the presence of the ground. Perhaps the artist felt that the use of a line would affect the effect of motion. So the figures here are in a circular sequence similar to the Satavahana and Pallava sculptures mentioned. Thus, when considering the stance and sequencing of component figures, the Greek-style sculpture differs from the one at Mamallapuram.

Secondly, let us look at the point of depiction, namely the sky and earth in the field. Ancient Indians perceived nature as being made up of the five elements — the sky, the earth, water, fire and wind. Ancient Greeks on the other hand, saw only four elements — the earth, water, fire and wind. The sky formed an important element for Indians. Technically analysing the two pieces, and in pictures 3 and 4, it is clear that the composition is made up of two slanting fields on which warriors are engaged in slaying their opponents. The area underneath, rich in the presence of figures, can be interpreted as the earth. The inclusion of a vacant or light coloured area on top is an indication of the sky.

In picture 5, and looking at the details, we can infer that the Amazonmachy does not have the element of the sky, unlike the Satavahana and Pallava sculptures. If the field is divided into three parts, left, centre and right, in the Pallava piece, the army is shown advancing from left to right. In the Greek piece, it is all over the field from left to right, where people from the two armies are shown fighting each other.

The Amazonmanchy and Mahishasuramardhini sculptures do not have any similarity except that they are both stone relief works and both have a scene of war with an army led by a woman.

Ancient Europe’s tradition of art was a continuation of a process passed on through generations — to record scenes and create the tools and materials to help them in this attempt. In the 12th Century A.D., this tradition underwent a period of revival in the process of the renaissance of art. But before the 20th Century, the view of the modern art has been to assume a denial of this art tradition. Even before the Sangam period, Indians have been deeply involved in the quest of inquiry. As a result of sieges and foreign invasion, Indians today speak of modernity in fine art in the language and terms described by Europeans. This is a fact observed in Indian art history and which must be used to set the record straight.

It is obvious that the Mahishasuramardhini panel has inspired Carmel Berkson aesthetically. I feel our scholars should also come out with research that will bring to light the aesthetic quality of our traditional ancient artworks.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail