inside the wonder house_buddhist art and the summary)

4
Inside the Wonder House: Buddhist Art and the West Wonder House In this text, the author tried to explore the relationship between Western influence and the study of Gandharan art. At the beginning of the text, he quoted a section from Rudyard Kipling’s novel Kim (1901) to illustrate how Greco-Buddhist art was being viewed from the subject position of an Anglo-Indian. In the story, the “natives”, here refer to the local Indians, call the Lahore Museum “the Wonder House”. There are three important aspects about the museum: first of all, it was built by the colonial rulers, which is beyond native experience or expertise. The most part of the exhibits are Greco-Buddhist sculptures, showing the taste for the art of the classical West, secondly, the contents are available solely through the effort of the colonial administration, which collected and preserved the art in the museum; finally, these sculptures were made in the distant past, which are superior to what natives are capable of producing in the present. The author suggested that this Buddhist art serves to mark the cultural heights of the past against the impoverishment of the present day, whereas British superiority is shown by their ability to recollect the artworks and reorganize them in a western scientific way in the museum. Although the Buddhist images in Wonder House are by definition alien and different, yet through appropriate interpretative and disciplinary techniques, they are totally knowable. Meanwhile, the curator, with the aids of European books, and his training of an art historian, was able to transform the Buddhist art as a known version to the western audience. However, this was made only possible by controlling and excluding the native presence, their history and voice, from the discourse of art history. Similarly, scholars used more or less the same way in the creation of the discourse of Greco-Buddhist Art. Greco-Buddhist art Greco-Buddhist art is thought to be originally related to the eastern conquests of the Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic settlement in the border of India. For example, Bactria, located in the northwest of Gandhara, is thought to have carried on Hellenistic traditions in to the first century B.C. The reasons for the enthusiasm for the collection of antiquities such as Gandharan art

Upload: karlkatze

Post on 27-Apr-2015

32 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Inside the Wonder House_Buddhist Art and the Summary)

Inside the Wonder House: Buddhist Art and the West

Wonder House

In this text, the author tried to explore the relationship between Western influence and the study of Gandharan art. At the beginning of the text, he quoted a section from Rudyard Kipling’s novel Kim (1901) to illustrate how Greco-Buddhist art was being viewed from the subject position of an Anglo-Indian. In the story, the “natives”, here refer to the local Indians, call the Lahore Museum “the Wonder House”. There are three important aspects about the museum: first of all, it was built by the colonial rulers, which is beyond native experience or expertise. The most part of the exhibits are Greco-Buddhist sculptures, showing the taste for the art of the classical West, secondly, the contents are available solely through the effort of the colonial administration, which collected and preserved the art in the museum; finally, these sculptures were made in the distant past, which are superior to what natives are capable of producing in the present. The author suggested that this Buddhist art serves to mark the cultural heights of the past against the impoverishment of the present day, whereas British superiority is shown by their ability to recollect the artworks and reorganize them in a western scientific way in the museum. Although the Buddhist images in Wonder House are by definition alien and different, yet through appropriate interpretative and disciplinary techniques, they are totally knowable. Meanwhile, the curator, with the aids of European books, and his training of an art historian, was able to transform the Buddhist art as a known version to the western audience. However, this was made only possible by controlling and excluding the native presence, their history and voice, from the discourse of art history. Similarly, scholars used more or less the same way in the creation of the discourse of Greco-Buddhist Art.

Greco-Buddhist art

Greco-Buddhist art is thought to be originally related to the eastern conquests of the Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic settlement in the border of India. For example, Bactria, located in the northwest of Gandhara, is thought to have carried on Hellenistic traditions in to the first century B.C. The reasons for the enthusiasm for the collection of antiquities such as Gandharan art are multifarious: firstly, it was an extension of classical archaeology into India, relating to the Neoclassicism movement in late eighteenth century; secondly, the political authority of the West over India could be supported by such material evidence of Greek presence in India.

Historical developments

The beginning of the interest in Gandharan art is highly related with the British colonial expansion In India. “It was not until 1852, soon after the British annexation of the Punjab in 1849, that examples of sculpture from Gandharan were described as exhibiting Greek attributes.” W. Jackson, Vice-President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, described two heads as having Greek and Hindu features respectively. In his eyes, of course, the Greek one is superior. Later in 1852, a large group of sculpture from Gandharan was identified a having Greek and Buddhist characteristics. It became a problem to reconcile the purity of the Greek influence in these works with their Buddhistic character. In 1870, C. W. Leitner, an educational administrator and archaeological enthusiast from Lahore, brought a collection of Gandharan sculpture to Europe and used the term “Graeco-Buddhist “ to name these works. It was being regarded by many scholars as a new page in the history of Greek art,

Page 2: Inside the Wonder House_Buddhist Art and the Summary)

which secured the source of western influence in the discourse of Greece and Hellenism. Despite skepticism from scholar like William Vaux, this notion was further elaborated by scholar like Vincent Smith. He proposed that there are two periods of Western influence on Gandhara. The early period was essentially Greek but the main school of Buddhist art was Roman in inspiration. Therefore he argued that the term “Romano-Buddhist” seems to be more appropriate because Rome was the mediator of Greek influence on Gandhara. For example, he discovered many Roman counterparts of these Gandharan sculptures like birth of Sakyamuni to Apollo’s birth, and Parinirvana to Greek banquet scenes. However, the author criticized it as a colonial discourse, in which Western influence was always self-evident. Although Gandharan art was regarded by him as a new page in the history of Greek art, they were considered to be inferior copies from their European counterparts. In Smith words, they were “only echoes of the second rate Roman art of the third and fourth countries” and “never Greek enough in its inability to match the achievements of the classical West”. Therefore, the author regarded the opinion from Smith as only one aspect of a larger discourse of Western power and authority that incorporated the aesthetic and cultural into the ideology of late nineteenth-century European colonialism. Despite Leitner’ s effort to incorporate this Buddhist art as a natural part of a Universal History in which East-West exchange was thought to be symmetrical and naturally beneficial, he is similar to Smith by trying to incorporate India into the schemes of Western schemes of Western knowledge. In 1900, Alfred Foucher published an art historical book with Buddhist textual studies called L’art Greco-bouddhique du Gandhara, in which the Gandharan Buddhist art was represented as a work obviously familiar to the European viewer. He argued that the Greek element was absorbed by Buddhist art is a scheme of gradual decline. Once again, the author thought he joined the discourse of Western colonial discovery by naming and reproducing the artworks for the Western audience.

The Origin of the Buddha Image

In order to answer the question about the role of Hellenism in the development of Indian Buddhist art, the issue about the origin of the Buddha Image should be addressed. In the late 19th Century, it was understood that in early Buddhist art there was no representations of the Buddha in human form but only “aniconic”, which are symbols to represent Sakyamuni, for example, his footprint or the wheel of Dharma. James Fergusson suggested that the idea of making a Buddha image in anthropomorphic form was inspired by the tradition of Greek image making. Meanwhile, Alfred Foucher identified that the Gandharan sculpture as the oldest images of the Buddha. He also confirmed that Greek blood must be responsible for making such sculptures. However, Ananda Coomaraswamy rejected his viewpoint. He criticized that such point of view was to “flatter the prejudices of European Students and to offend the susceptibilities of Indians”, because he believed that “precedents for the Buddha image were available in pre-Gandharan Indian artistic traditions including Jain and Buddhist art from sites such as Mathura”. Coomaraswamy, who received his education in the West, lamented that “Indian (and Japanese) scholars have shown a singular humility, and timidity, in their ready acceptance of all the results of European scholarship”. It is important to know that the discourse around the origin of the Buddha image was highly charged with issues of colonialism and race, in which Western influence means progress and the Natives means stagnation.

In Pursuit of Greco-Buddhist Art

Page 3: Inside the Wonder House_Buddhist Art and the Summary)

Accordingly, Aurel Stein was the most successful archaeologist to explore the vast region between Gandhara and the borders of China. As soon as 1896, he was allowed to visit Swat district, where he expressed his joy at standing on “classical” soil. However, random digging was abundant in this region that it was impossible for him to suggest chronological schemes that supported the claim for a Greek origin of the Buddha image. As a result, in 1898, he proposed to the British Indian government for the founding at his 1st Central Asian expedition. Since Britain was then competing with Russia in that region, the author hinted the complex relationship between scholarship and politics. In 1900, with the aid of the colonial government, Stein was able to explore south of Khotan. One of his goals is to secure Western authority over the texts and other antiquities that had been appearing in piecemeal fashion during the 1890s. His findings would be handed over to the British government for the British Museum like Greek art, so as to show how far into Central Asia that classical art of the West had penetrated. At Miran, he discovered the name of a painter “Tita”, which he thought to be a sort of Roman Eurasian. At Dunhuang, he found “the faithful preservation of the face, pose, and drapery as developed by Greco-Buddhist art “. To be sure, Stein’s most important contribution to the discourse of Greco-Buddhist art was the documentation of its unbroken trail from Gandhra to China. Even if the influence of Greco-Buddhist art on Indian art was being doubted, schlolars could still use his findings to support the argument that Gandharan art is the “basis for all subsequent Buddhist art in Central and East Asia”. eg. Fenollosa’s Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art, the first important book on Asian art had based on this theory to understand the artworks.