Why does man make silpa (art)?

The unequivocal answer of the Aitareya-sage is: man makes art to cultivate or culture himself (atmanam samskurute).

The question is pursued no further nor the answer amplified in explanation.

Aesthetics is that branch of philosophy that aims to establish the general principles of art and beauty. It can be divided into the philosophy of art and the philosophy of beauty. Although some philosophers have considered one of these a subdivision of the other, the philosophies of art and beauty are essentially different. The philosophy of beauty recognizes aesthetic phenomena outside of art, as in nature or in non-artistic cultural phenomena such as morality, science, or mathematics; it is concerned with art only insofar as art is beautiful. These are the views held by the Aestheticians of the West.

It is essential at this point to understand the role that art and aesthetics played in our illustrious past. It is true that we have no text yet before us to show that there was any systematic intellectual discipline or autonomous speculative thought relating to what, in Western culture is known as aesthetics. Indeed, the question of beauty in nature and art was hardly ever, except incidentally perhaps, a subject of serious investigation by our thinkers, that is by our tattvajnanis and darsanikas. The reasons may be enumerated as follows:

1. Art was, with our ancestors, an activity directed towards the betterment of the maker, viewer, reader or listener. It thus fell under the purview of Ethics.

2. In Indian speculative thought, the idea of the good belonged to the realm of epistemology and logic, but the idea of the beautiful in the Indian mind was associated with psychology, the theory of Rasa and Bhava, which we shall discuss, being proof of this. Aesthetics thus, was not regarded as an autonomous intellectual pursuit.

3. The comprehension an conception of the good (sivam, mangalam); was coupled with that of the joy of bliss and beauty (anandam, sundaram) Hence, Ethics and Aesthetics seem to have been regarded as one entity.

This is not to say that was no discourse or speculation on the arts in ancient and medieval India. Apart from Bharat muni's Natyashastra, we have from the 4th and 5th century onwards continuing through to the end of the 17th century, a series of technical treatises on poetics, dance, drama, music, sculpture, painting, architecture etc. These Sanskrit treatises were, to be precise, known as alamkara-sastras (on poetics, rhetoric and prosody), sangita-sastras (on music), natya-sastras (on music, dance and drama), silpi-sastras (sculpture, painting etc.), vastu-sastras (on architecture), and so on. Strictly speaking, none of these can claim to be treatises on aesthetics; nevertheless are deemed to be not so inadequate compendiums on the respective arts and activities and considerations linked with them.

Definitions of art are legion and as unconvincing as they are multiple. Yet the minimum descriptive definition may be more faithful to the real nature of art than more elaborate ones, for art is inescapably the organization of the sensuous particulars of a physical material. The words "beauty" and "art" are both abstractions, generalizations detached from any specific reference, Attempts to define art generally aim at establishing a set of characteristics applicable to all fine arts as well as the differences that set them apart., aestheticians had not agreed upon a definition of art, and a skeptical position became popular, holding that it is impossible in principle to define art.

What is taste in art? What is beauty in art? Do we have to have a particular kind of attitude or predisposition to have an "aesthetic experience" with art? Would such an attitude need to be 'disinterested,' that is, an experience separated from practical interests like economic, moral or political concerns? Would one need to focus on special features of the art, like color or shape? Would one need to focus on feelings, emotions, or ideas in the art? Would one need to focus on conditions (such as history) 'outside' the art itself? Should connoisseurship play a role?

Indian philosophy expounds two metaphysical notions. One, the belief in the transcendent reality or being (atman/brahman) into which are fused the values of goodness (sivam), beauty (sundaram), infinitude (anantam), silence (santam) and beatitude (anandam), and two, the idea of absolute value and status of man as 'being' (tat) and 'becoming' (sat). Art in India has evolved techniques that make for the synthesis of the mundane and sublime as seen on the temple walls.

By aesthetic experience Indian rhetoricians, who have been systematically exploring it since the 7th century, mean a dynamic of subjective consciousness, which does not identify itself with the source of pleasure by which it is triggered, but becomes a totally absorbing experience. Whoever experiences this process is absorbed in it to the point of transcending his own limited subjectivity. The climax reached through the transcendence of pleasure is described as 'selfless sympathy' (Sanskrit. sahrdayatâ). The concept of selfless sympathy is based on two poles, which the classical Indian mind considers wholly compatible: the first is the 'heart' (hrid), conceived as the root-source of emotion; the other is selflessness, the dimension where subjectivity and pleasure are transcended. Aesthetic experience is therefore a process leading from selfish attachment to the source of pleasure to an unafflicted mental state.

The central idea clearly discernible in Indian classical art is that beauty is inherent in spirit, not in matter. The Sukraniti, one of the old Indian treatises, clearly lays down that while making images of gods, the artist should depend only upon spiritual vision, and not upon the appearance of the objects as perceived by the senses. All the same naturalism and realism were not completely subordinated to the classical symbolism of iconographic values. Along with spiritual fervor was also the intense feeling of reverence and love of nature. The Vishnudharmottara, a fifth century treatise, clearly lays down that "the painter should study the picture and mood of nature and depict the seasons he sees around him by the flowers and fruits on trees and the joy or happiness of men, animals and birds." Thus, though the Indian art forms are philosophical, they are realistic in their minute observation. At the same time, it must be realized that the aim of Indian art is not just to evoke sensuous delight; reality instead of being veiled is simply idealized.

The Indian rhetoricians who propounded and elaborated on various aspects of art-practice find their beginnings with the Natya Sastra of Bharata of the 2nd or 1st century B.C. and was developed subsequently by Bhatta-Lollata and Sri Sankuka (800-840), Bhamaha to Rudrata of the Pracina school (650 -850 A.D.), Anandavardhana of the Navina school (c.850 A.D.), Bhatta-Nayaka (900-1000 A.D.), Abhinavagupta (980-1020 A.D.), Pratiharenduraja (900-950 A.D.), Kuntaka (950-1000), Mahima-Bhatta (1020-1100), Mammata (1050-1100) to Jagannatha (1620 -1660). [Ramachandran 1979 & 1980; Wignesan 1987]

One of the earliest consummate views of poetics is that of the Vedanta school of Sanskrit Indian thought. Though other views exist in ancient and medieval Indian philosophy, such as, the popular view that art procures personal pleasure to the receptor, and the Sankya view that art is an end in itself, the Vedanta school, which is Brahman-centred, posits the realisation of the " ultimate reality " through art, that is, the attainment of moksa or final liberation from this existence.

Scholars, particularly the navina or later scholars, Bhatta Nayaka, Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in particular, laid down their considered views on the art of poetry backed by the entire classical heritage of Sanskrit poetry and drama at its noblest manifestations. Whether it was a piece such as the Abhijnana Sakuntalam or the Meghadutam, they came to the inescapable conclusion that a mere analysis of technical skill and formal construction did not afford them the unique art experience; it had more to do with an emotional state Bhava created, induced by skill and formal construction. Yashodhara came to much the same conclusion with respect to the plastic arts. Of the 6 canons or Shadanga, meaning six limbs of the art of chitra that he enumerates, four Rupabheda differentiation of form), Pramanani (proportion, balance rhythm etc.), Sadrisyam (verisimilitude to natural forms), Varnikabhangam (literally, waves of colour, high and low, surface and depth, gradation and tonality) are purely formal qualities characterizing the sarira or the body of the work, but two, bhava or the emotional state of being and lavanya or grace, are qualities that constitute what has been called the atman or soul of art.

The Upanishads conceived of the ultimate reality as the "fullness of perfection" and the fountainhead of all enjoyment - rasa. In the epics and the Puranas, a personal God became the embodiment of all beauty and the object of man's devotion and rapture.

In its most obvious sense, rasa refers to the sap, juice of plants, or extract/ fluid. In this physical sense, it is easy to identify: for instance, one speaks of the rasa of orange or sugarcane. Rasa also signifies the non-material essence of something or the “best or finest part of it,” like perfume, which comes from matter but is not so easy to describe or comprehend. Rasa also denotes taste and flavour, relating to consuming or handling either the physical object or taking in its nonphysical properties that yield pleasure. And when Rasa is applied to art and aesthetic experiences, the word signifies a state of heightened delight or ananda, the kind of bliss that transcends pleasure and exists in the realm of the spirit.

The Aesthetic experience was described as the “tasting of flavour” or rasavadana. The viewer, or more specifically, the scholar or connoisseur, referred to as a rasika. A work of art bearing rasa is often described as being rasavat or rasavant.

The artist strives for rasa in his work and the rasika or connoisseur intuitively detects it. Rasa is bestowed, not made.

It was once believed that only those with a philosophic leaning could perceive the quality of beauty in the work of art as independent of the theme.

Though rasa is defined as one and undivided it is one or the other of these nine Rasas through which an aesthetic experience takes place. Out of these nine, one sentiment or flavour dominates, a work of art propels a spectator toward, or becomes the occasion for, a rasa experience. Rasa is born out of the union of the determinants (vibhavas), the consequents (anubhavas) and the complementary emotional states (vyabhicharibhavas).

There is no agreement about how many rasas there are; however, Bharata speaks of eight sentiments: Shringara (the erotic), hasya (the comic), Karuna (the pathetic), Raudra (the furious), Vira (the heroic), Bhayanaka (the terrible), Bibhatsa (the odious) and Adbhuta (the marvelous). Later writers have added a ninth rasa, Shanta (the quiescent) that has been widely accepted. Hence the Navarasa.

Bharata goes on to declare:

vibhavanubhava-vyabhicari-samyogad rasa mspattih.

This means that Rasa originates out of a combination of Vibhavas (excitants), Anubhavas (ensuants) and Vyabhicaribhavas (accessory feelings) with the sthayi-bhava (permanent feeling).

This emphasis on emotional states may appear paradoxical in light of the views held by our writers on poetics who considered detachment (and hence impersonality, disinterestedness, non-involvement etc.) to be the essential pre-condition of the experience of pure bliss or ananda resulting from the aesthetic experience, and that the aim of art was to induce in the mind of the beholder / listener / viewer, that state of detachment. However, the rasa theorists of the Navina School argue that this inducement is made easier in the case of those whose feelings are already sufficiently cultured and disciplined. It is argued further that an object of art in which feeling is the principal or dominant determinant of the artistic ultimate, helps to discipline and culture the feeling by taking the reader / beholder / listener through the whole gamut of its experience. Art, poetry, music etc. thus came gradually to be acknowledged and drawn on as a means of culturing and refining human feelings, emotions, sensibilities, perceptions, etc, realizing its fruition with the enhancement and refinement of the character.

The consensus of opinion among Indian philosophers is that the creative power is a native endowment blossoming without any reason, though a few like Rudrata also concede some role to training and learning, or knowledge and scholarship (vyutpatti), in the flare-up of creative (poetic) disposition. They stress the spontaneity of pratibha, [imagination] but at the same time acknowledge that pratibha may be acquired. However, with Jagannatha, pratibha is not a natural propensity but an outcome of unimpeded cultivation (utpadya. [Ramachandran 1979:]

The creator is considered a seer or muni who has the skill or kausala to represent in concrete form his insights into the " ultimate reality "; his skill lies in his ability to perceive the unity and harmony of the universe which, to the ancient Indians, signifies " perfect beauty " and then to convey this unique insight of the Brahman to the receptor. " It is in answer to this need that we seek works of art. To one who has realized Brahman and has a synoptic view of nature art is superfluous. " [Ramachandran 1979: 81]

The creator does this by three stages. First, the perception of cosmic beauty through " self-forgetful " activity, made possible by the use of his imagination or pratibha, when contemplating common experience or observing typical facts; second, the transformation by pratibha of these observed facts and experiences into a general idea symbolizing the ultimate reality or the perfection in perceived beauty; and finally, the conversion of this general symbol, as the case may be, into concrete material form

But Indian aesthetics postulates that the receptor must be of a similar temperament or trempe as the artist or creator, that is, sa-hrdaya [in other words, one of " similar heart "], in order to be able to fully appreciate the work of art, while insisting on his lack of skill in constructing the concrete form of the work of art.

Many scholars assert that the rasa experience belongs not to the poet or to the actor but exclusively to the viewer. Several also maintain that the artist can obtain aesthetic experiences from the spectacle of his own performance. It is understood that the actor is moved by the passions he/she depicts just as the musician, dancer, and image maker would be involved in the emotion that he/she brings to the performance or work. However, the emotion during the act of making or performing is different from the rasa experience. The rasa experience has an illuminating element--a lightning flash of delight that can be experienced by the artist only if he/she is in the position of a spectator.

The process of appreciation is, in order, the reverse of the process of creation. The work of art stands midway between the two processes, effecting a transition from the one to the other. [Here, the French School’s postulates of " amont " and " aval " is worth drawing attention to.]The transition is rendered possible by the fact that the appreciator is of the same nature as the artist. But the appreciator differs from the artist in the degree of that nature, and this is the reason why appreciation waits upon creation. [Ramachandran 1979: 85]

All said and done, it becomes quite clear that appreciation of art is as artful a task as the creation of art, and both may be learned, without claiming, like the ancient Indians did, with the exception of Anandavardhana, Vagbhata, Dandin, Mammata, Vamana and a few others, that this faculty is a mythically God-given right. Of course, there may be differences of degrees between appreciators and artists, as there are between appreciators themselves.

Indian aesthetic theory, pivots around an axis of a bundle of key concepts such as rasa (taste, flavour), dhvani (poetic resonance), alamkâra and lakshana (poetic ornaments and marks), sphota (blossoming, sprouting utterance), or sabda (sound), considered as a bridge between the physical and the metaphysical. But for the purposes of this introductory address it is enough to bear in mind that in Indian theory emphasis is laid on the subjective dimension of aesthetic experience, i.e. what is inwardly felt by the experiencer and thereby transformed into an overwhelming experience of non-duality (Sanskrit advaita).

The quest for the beautiful is the true function of art. Art expresses beauty, the limit of which is not just visual but penetrates and exploits the mental and spiritual spheres. Beauty defies definition, explanation, and prescription. Art of every culture at any given time has its own ideals of beauty. So does beauty lie in the eyes of the beholder or is it a quality inherent in the art object? Is beauty based on a cannon or principle or is it entirely projected by the observer? The meaning of beauty can be approached in many ways. It could be subjective and objective.

India could certainly boast of her past glories, but her ancient heritage happens to be elementally highlighted in the pursuit of fine arts, in aesthetic expressions of different varieties. In music and painting, in dancing and acting, in architectural expressions and making of sculptures the basic concept of Rasam, the idea of Brahma Svada Sahodarah, as basically depicted in the Upanisadas, has not only been very much evident, an approach towards beauty- beauty is truth -has been the quintessence of all branches of ancient Indian fine arts.

It is traditionally known that ancient Indian fine arts were as many as sixty-four in number. Vatsyayana has given an enumeration of these sixty-four branches of fine arts in his remarkable work, Kama Sutra or Kama sutra.

In ancient India, the pursuit of art was not left to the mercy of occasional sparks of inspiration or individual taste and tendency, specialty in the case of children of high families. Catuhsasti-kala or the sixty-four arts were part and parcel of their syllabus of study. Every prince and princess, every son and daughter of aristocrats had to gain proficiency in all or most or at least some of these arts, failing which he or she would not get an -honoured place in the society.

In his immortal prose-romance, Kadambari, the poet Banabhatta has given a list of subjects in which Candrapida, his hero, gained mastery. He mentions among the arts-

Vyavamavida (physical culture), ayudha (use of weapons), Rathacarya (driving), Gajaprstha (elephant riding), Vadya (instrumental music), Nrtta (dancing), Gandharvaveda (dance and music), Hasti-Siksa (training of elephants), Turangavayojnana (ascertaining the age of a horse), Purusalaksana (determining the nature of a person), Citrakarman (painting), Patracchedya (decoration), Lekhyakarman (engraving), Sarva dyutakala (all the gambling arts), sakunirutaJnana (interpretation of the sounds of birds-a part of Nimittajnana), Grahaganita (astronomy), Ratnapariksa (appraising of jewels), Darukarman (wood-craft), Dantavyapara (ivorycarving), Vastuvidya (engineering), Tarana-lan-ghana-pluti (swimming-rowing-jumping), Indrajala(magic), Sarvalipi (all the scripts), Sarvadesabhasa (different dialects and languages) and so on and so forth. And even after that, the list is incomplete. For the poet concludes with an et cetera!

Besides the Silpa-sastras, references have been made to the arts in the Puranas Visnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana, in the holy scriptures of the Buddhists and Jainas and in the "Kamasutra" by Vatsyayana and the Harivamsa.

Briefly, to conclude, art has a well defined function to fulfill in a graduated scheme of life the definitive goal of which is anandam or moksha or bodhi, terms used to symbolize, generically speaking, a state of joyous blissful existence exemplified by an experience of absolute freedom and perfect bliss. By and large, this view has been holding its ground in India until very recently. One of our Twentieth century poets, the tallest of the tribe, Rabindranath Tagore, says in one of his devotional lyrics: "I dive into the sea of forms (rupa), hoping that I may come upon the gem of the formless (arupa=absolute Brahman)"

What Tagore perceived was an echo of the stance held by the late medieval santas or poet-saints and ancient seers. If the experience of the joy of bliss, of absolute freedom and wisdom is the final aspiration of life, then art, which pertains and is essentially related to the world of 'name' and 'form', they hold, should be a step towards the achievement of that final destination. In truth, art experience is intended to arouse our interest in the final goal by giving a preview or foretaste of the same. Indian traditional art maintains that reaching towards the formless by plunging through the ocean of form is, in a word, what art aims at.

Suggested Reading:

An Approach to Indian Art - Niharranjan Ray
History of Indian Asian Art - Edith Tomery
Indian art - Partha Mitter
History of Indian Architecture - Catherine Asher
Flamed Mosaic - Neville Tuli
Transformation of Nature in Art - A.K. Coomaraswami
Indian Art - Roy C. Craven
Dance of Shiva - A.K. Coomaraswami
Indian Aesthetics - Sneha Pandit
Wonder that is India - A.L.Basham
Mughal Architecture - Ebba Koch
History of Indian Painting - Barrette and Grey