I was recently reading a book by neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran where he argues that Chola bronzes from ancient India were mocked at by the Victorian Englishmen as artistically primitive and unrealistic. They were unrealistic in the sense that the waist was too narrow, hips too wide and their breasts too large. They in fact decided that art like this was not art at all and labeled it primitive art. Professor Ramachandran goes on to say that some of the Victorians labeled the art thus based on prevailing standards of Western art (some of which was rooted in realism and stemmed from classical Greek and Renaissance art).
Today most people will readily tell you that most expressions of art is not really about realism and is not about creating a replica about what is out there in the world – rather it is a figurative way of communicating message(s) in an appropriate way to the viewer. He makes the assertion (a bit specious in my view) that the ancient Cholas really knew about this dictum long ago and that was the reason why they did not create ‘realistic’ statues but accentuated the hips and breasts of the goddesses such that they could abstractly communicate beauty of the female form (one among the many such subjects they tackled) to the common people.
Parvati, consort of Lord Shiva, circa 1000 AD, Tamil Nadu, India
‘Classic Torso – I’, 2006, Sunil Gangadharan, Oil on wood. 2.5 ft X 5.5 ft
On a related note, a finding by scientists at Harvard and Princeton shows that intricate decorative tile-work found in medieval architecture across the Islamic world appears to exhibit advanced decagonal quasicrystal geometry (mathematical concepts discovered by mathematicians and physicists just 30 years back). (Reported in the current issue of the journal Science)
“In their journal report, Mr. Lu and Dr. Steinhardt concluded that by the 15th century, Islamic designers and artisans had developed techniques to construct nearly perfect quasi-crystalline Penrose patterns, five centuries before discovery in the West. Some of the most complex patterns, called “girih” in Persian, consist of sets of contiguous polygons fitted together with little distortion and no gaps. Running through each polygon (a decagon, pentagon, diamond, bowtie or hexagon) is a decorative line. Mr. Lu found that the interlocking tiles were arranged in predictable ways to create a pattern that never repeats — that is, quasi crystals.” – excerpt from the New York Times (02/27)
Penrose Sphere, 2006 Mathematica 5.2 Wolfram Research
This has oftentimes led me to wonder how many of our prevailing art movements could have roots in techniques practiced by our ancient ancestors. Have you come across any examples of this kind?
PS: Link to an artist who uses mathematics to create art: http://www.art2muse.com.au/artists/ghee_beom_kim
Sunil,
You are suggesting that labeling certain art “primitive” may in itself be “primitive,” and also that the most advanced technology as appropriately used for art.
I see the logic of this. A simple mechanism like the camera or X-ray machine can record correct human proportions. No advanced technology even begins to approach the sophistication of the “primitive” mind.
Sexual repression has its consequences.
When I was a boy I would sneak into my dad’s studio and look at his Human Figure books. The women had their eyes blocked out with a black bar and the men had their penises blurred.
Strange world.
Wolfgang Laib comes to mind
http://www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=9993&page_tab=Artworks_for_sale
He makes the assertion (a bit specious in my view) that the ancient Cholas really knew about this dictum long ago and that was the reason why they did not create ‘realistic’ statues but accentuated the hips and breasts of the goddesses such that they could abstractly communicate beauty of the female form (one among the many such subjects they tackled) to the common people.
Why is it suspicious, Sunil? If the ancient Cholas simply made their images without realism because of incompetence, would they consistently create such a powerful representation? Are you saying their accentuations are mere accidents?
Karl,
For some reason I suspected you might catch that…
I suspect that the ancient Cholas really did not have a dictum towards developing art like the one shown in the picture. Elements of what must have used would have been an amplification of the base common factors that it takes to generate the strongest dispositions of a female form in human minds – wide hips, long legs, narrow waist and large breasts and then start to incorporate these elements into their sculptures. The same way an accomplished cartoonist uses a small but highly accentuated subset of the human face to generate a representation of the face that they are caricaturing to produce a result that could be stronger than the original face that they are lampooning (the cartoonist example is really not mine, it adds substance)…
Leslie,
I liked Wolfgang Laib’s works a lot. They remind me of a ‘long ago’ India.
Sunil,
If you’re reading Ramachandran, it would be interesting to develop his ideas relating art and neuroscience, which you’re also knowlegeable about. I have read only indirectly about him myself, but found this opposing article quite compelling. Maybe the subject for another post?
Steve,
That is a very interesting contrasting viewpoint and I am sure to study this paper carefully. Thanks for sending this link over. Maybe we need more neuroscientists with fMRI like tools studying the neural basis of why we like art and what tickles the neurons when someone sees good art…
Sunil,
The most interesting thing to me about this post is your painting, but there has been no discussion of it as far as I can see. What are you saying with ‘Classic Torso – I’, 2006?
‘Classic Torso – I’, 2006
is a powerful painting.
Good question, Karl.
I have been to many Indian temples where I have been fascinated by carvings and limestone based paintings of the female form that was at once exquisitely executed as well as artistically sensuous. I posted ‘Classic Torso – I’ (painted last year) as a backdrop to the subject of this post taking the instance of the female form which has continued to fascinate the painters eye over the centuries leading to many outward manifestations of the form – be it limestone paintings on the outer walls of the temples or digitally transformed oil paintings.
Sunil,
What I find most interesting about the image is that the figure is broken into shapes that do not describe a solid form. There is almost the feeling that you have created a woman out of flat pieces of colored paper that do not even cover the black background. This is remarkable.
Karl,
Thanks for letting me into a novel way of looking at this painting. It is amazing what you can learn when you submit artwork to scrutiny (of course it also means that you are baring your ‘art-soul’… to the world)