The study of ancient and medieval Indian art and architecture emerged as a nascent pursuit about

two centuries ago. In the late eighteenth and through a major part of the nineteenth century, it
grew out of a keen and unrelenting interest in Indian antiquities as curiosities, as admirable
'handicrafts, as mysterious 'monstrosities, and above all, as 'artifacts' or sources of past histories
of a country then colonized by the British. According to Parul Pandya Dhar, these objectives
set the tone for and determined the methods adopted in the study of Indian archaeology and art
history during the nineteenth and early decades of the twentieth century.

The potential of the visual artifact in comprehending India's past was well appreciated by the
British antiquarians of the nineteenth century, even as steps were being taken during the period to
understand Indian history and culture through written records. The setting up of the Asiatic
Society (of Bengal in 1784 by William Jones) institutionalized the study of India's past. For
Jones, however, the remains of architecture and sculpture were mere "monuments of antiquity
and not specimens of art, which seemed to share their origins with the arts of Africa." At the
same time, he lamented the loss of Shilpa Shästras, the treatises, which he felt may have
contained important information on traditional Indian arts and manufactures. It was as
'handicraft' or 'manufacture' that Indian art first evoked British interest.

Important work emerged from individual initiatives such as those of Colin Mackenzie (1754-
1811). Working with a team of craftsmen and learned Indians Mackenzie acquired translations of
inscriptions and manuscripts and had detailed maps and drawings of some southern Indian sites
prepared. His efforts at documenting the Amaravati stüpa and site are of particular art historical
significance. Several traditional Indian scholars played an important part in the colonial project
of recovering India's past but were usually assigned subordinate roles. The most significant
contribution of the period lay in the method of extensive survey, documentation, archiving, and
reporting.

Orientalism refers to a way of viewing and representing the East that emerged in the 18th and
19th centuries, shaped by European colonial domination over Asia and Africa. This perspective
often relied on romanticized and stereotypical imagery, portraying Indian art, as sensual,
mystical, and otherworldly. During the British colonial period, European artists, scholars, and
collectors engaged with India's rich artistic heritage, but their interpretations were heavily
influenced by Eurocentric biases. Indian art was often celebrated for its perceived "exotic"
qualities, while its cultural, historical, and social contexts were largely overlooked. This
approach reduced Indian art to a primitive and decorative status, undermining its intellectual and
cultural sophistication. By emphasizing formal and aesthetic features over deeper cultural
significance, Orientalist perspectives reinforced a Eurocentric hierarchy that privileged Western
art and rationalism over the artistic traditions of colonized regions. This skewed representation
contributed to a limited understanding of Indian art's contributions to global cultural heritage.
Among those orientals who pioneered a methodological study of Indian architecture, James
Fergusson is well-known for his systematic study of Indian architectural history and Alexander
Cunningham is remembered for laying the foundations of Indian archaeology. Both believed in
the superiority of Western aesthetics, techniques, and canons and categorized the material
remains of India's past within colonial constructs.

Attempts by some Indian scholars such as Ram Raz and Rajendralala Mitra to interpret Indian
art history in the context of its specific cultural matrix and to engage with its textual and regional
coordinates did not find many takers until much later. Ram Raz was in fact the first to study
Indian monuments concerning indigenous architectural texts and the living tradition of architects
and sculptors. His works are recorded in the delayed published Essay on the Architecture of the
Hindus. The early framework of Indian art history is discussed in the Volume by Upinder Singh
and Gautam Sengupta. In her contribution, "Archaeologists and Architectural Scholars in
Nineteenth-Century India," Singh draws attention to little-known aspects of Cunningham's
important contributions to Indian art and architectural history. In doing so, she also focuses on
the place accorded to art historical issues in the activities of the Archaeological Survey of India
during the latter half of the 19th century. Singh's intensely researched work reveals insightful
details about subtle shifts in Cunningham's contextual understandings of early Buddhist sculpture
and architecture.

Distinct in approach from Cunningham, James Fergusson, with a clear focus on architectural
history, attempted to understand Indian architecture in a global context and through the
comparative method. His passion for arriving at general principles, processes, criteria, and
canons of architecture through extensive surveys and illustrated records has rarely been matched.
He documented and attempted to 'read' the monument to its last detail, treating it as a 'fixed'
and hence the most reliable source of cultural interpretation. His focus was on the artistic and
technical processes of its making, and on the period and region styles. According to him,
Egyptian, Classical Greek, and Indian architecture represented 'true' styles as opposed to the
'imitative' styles seen during the revival of the Classical and the Gothic in Europe. But beyond
his empathy for Indian architecture, Fergusson was an avowed believer in the superiority of the
Anglo-Saxons over the Asians. He adopted racial classifications for art periods and styles, which
have had a persistent presence in Indian art historical discourse. He was also convinced of the
progressive degeneration of Indian art, the best being represented by ancient (Buddhist art.
Fergusson's approach was continued by his successors, James Burgess, Henry Cousens,
Alexander Rea, A.H. Longhurst, and Percy Brown, to name some of the notable architectural
historians. It may be recalled here that in categorizing Indian art and architecture, Cunningham
had adopted a time-based classification, terming the periods as 'Indo-Grecian,' 'Indo-Scythian,'
and 'Indo-Sassanian' that nonetheless reflected his prejudice about the derivative nature of Indian
art. The most glaring omission in much of the Orientalist writings was the neglect of Indian texts
and contexts in interpreting Indian art and architecture. This resulted in some added and incorrect
speculations about the origins and derivations of Indian architectural forms, such as the 'origin' of
the Indian temple from the Buddhist stúpa.

Nationalist perspective on Indian art emerged during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a
response to colonialism and the perceived cultural and political subjugation of India by foreign
powers. Nationalists sought to celebrate and promote Indian art and culture as a way of asserting
their country's identity and independence. This perspective was often characterized by a revival
of ancient artistic traditions and a rejection of European styles and influences. For example, the
Bengal School of Art, which emerged in the early 20th century, sought to create a distinctively
Indian style of art that was rooted in the country's rich cultural and spiritual traditions. The
movement drew heavily on indigenous techniques and themes, such as miniature painting,
calligraphy, and religious iconography, while also incorporating modern artistic innovations and
techniques. Dhar argues that the nationalist perspective on Indian art emerged in the early 20th
century as part of the broader struggle for Indian independence. This perspective sought to create
a distinctiveness. Indian style of art that reflected the country's cultural and spiritual traditions
and reflected the aspirations of the Indian people for cultural autonomy and self-expression.
However, this perspective has also been subject to critique and challenge. Critics argue that it can
be limiting and fails to appreciate the diversity and complexity of Indian artistic traditions. (PP
Dhar)

Babu Rajendralala Mitra was a nineteenth-century Indian scholar educated in the West, whose
writings hold a special place in the early decades of Indian art history, and was an important
voice in the Nationalist understandings of Indian art. His unique position in Indian art
historiography forms the subject of Gautam Sengupta's contribution, "Rajendralala Mitra and
the Formative Years of Indian Art History." Sengupta gives an in-depth reading of the
ambivalences and dilemmas noticed in the writings of this Indian contemporary of Cunningham.
And Fergusson. While Rajendralala Mitra contested the hegemony of European scholarship, his
training and hence understanding of Indian art were grounded in Western terms of reference and
Greeco-Roman standards or canons. At the same time, his acute awareness of the regional
context of Eastern Indian artistic manifestations, as seen in his works on the antiquities of Orissa
and Bodhgaya, helped in underlining the 'region' with the 'nation' as an Important construct in the
study of Indian art and architecture.

Even though Fergusson, Burgess, and other contemporary architectural historians had paid
attention to 'form' and 'style' in Indian architecture, Indian sculpture, and painting did not gain
favor as 'fine art' until the early decades of the twentieth century and were considered useful
mainly as visual records of the debased customs, manners, religious beliefs, and other aspects of
India's past. Indian sculpture was viewed through the lens of a classical Western standard
epitomized by the Greek arts of antiquity. The lack of 'realism' or 'naturalism, the absence of a
sense of perspective and proportion, the many heads and multiple arms of divinities,
animal-headed gods, explicitly sexual scenes on temple walls, and other representations evoked
several derogatory responses to Indian art as opines Mitter. While figural sculpture was severely
criticized, abstract patterns and architectural ornament were rated highly as representing the
finest traditions in handicrafts, meant to be carefully documented and emulated in British
industrial design and manufacture.

There was little by way of a systematic stylistic analysis of Indian sculpture. A. Foucher evolved
a methodological basis for the stylistic study of Gandhara sculptures, several of which were not
inscribed or dated. Gandharan art remains excavated at sites such as Taxila served to reaffirm the
idea of India's longstanding debt to the culture of the Occident. Foucher employed visual criteria
and identified cross-cultural influences systematically, and at times correlated these with other
available historical records to arrive at broad categories of classification. Using these devices, he
evolved a model for the chronological development of Gandharan sculpture and its obvious debt
to Greco-Roman art. Where dated examples were unavailable, the style became an important tool
of analysis in working out the development of Gandharan sculpture. Foucher also suggested the
Greek origins of the Buddha image, which was to be counterfeit argued by Coomaraswamy
subsequently.

Ludwig Bachhofer used his training with Heinrich Wölfflin in the Austrian-German to analyze
the stylistic development of Indian sculpture. Bachhofer provided a rigorous framework of
stylistic analysis, which included details of individual forms and overall composition. The
nationalist response to colonial prejudices translated as a quest for researching the origins,
rationale, 'inner meaning, and above all, the 'Indian-ness' of Indian art. The aesthetic appreciation
of Indian art, beyond its usefulness as a visual document of Indian history, was also In evidence.
To meet these objectives, methodological approaches came to be rooted at first in symbolism,
Iconography, and iconology. This in turn led to a concerted engagement with texts during the
first half of the twentieth century. The search for meaning required an understanding of cultural
contexts myth, religion, literature, the language of gesture and posture, technical treatises,
literary texts, and local culture. To the Western mind, this knowledge seemed more remote and
difficult to cultivate than to apply the already evolved Western art historical methods to an
interpretation of form and style. Even so, the essential 'Indianness' of Indian art was also
advocated strongly by some European scholars such as E.B. Havell. Havell believed that Indian
art should be understood and appreciated on its own terms, rather than judged by European
classical standards. He argued that Indian art was not a mere imitation of nature but a profound
spiritual expression aimed at revealing the divine essence within the external world. Criticizing
European archaeologists like Fergusson and Smith, Havell dismissed their claims of Gandhara
art’s superiority and the notion of Indian art’s regression after the Vedic period. He emphasized
that Indian artistic traditions were deeply rooted in philosophical, religious, and cultural ideas,
which required an intuitive and empathetic approach for proper appreciation. According to
Havell, the artistic intention behind Indian art was central, as it prioritized the expression of ideas
and spiritual truths over anatomical precision or naturalistic representation. For him, Indian art
was a "living thing" of immense value, and its essence could only be grasped by adopting an
Indian perspective rather than imposing extraneous European conventions.

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy was at the forefront of the nationalist response to 'Orientalist'

constructions of Indian art history during the colonial period. He placed the text-image
relationship at the center of his relentless investigations into the roots and rationale of India's
artistic past. He sourced Vedic and post-Vedic texts, Buddhist and Jaina literature, treatises on art
and architecture, varied genres of Indian literary writings, as well as a few epigraphic and
numismatic sources to marshal evidence towards his objectives. The etymology and semantics of
indigenous art and architectural terms interested him as a source for understanding the symbolic
and functional basis of the vocabulary of art. He engaged with interrelationships between the
creation, form, function, and symbolism of Indian art, harnessing a range of sources - textual and
visual - in an attempt to free it from colonial prejudices. Coomaraswamy approached the study of
traditional Indian architecture from the historical-technical as well as from the metaphysical and
theoretical viewpoints. Equally or even more so, he was concerned with the metaphysical,
religious, and symbolic underpinnings of Indian art and architecture. His relentless search for the
non-derivative or 'original' nature of Indian art is typified in the debate on the Indian origin of the
Buddha Image, where he also establishes its development from early Indian yaksha prototypes,
as a counterpoint to Foucher's thesis that accorded an exclusive Gandharan.

Two noted Indologists, Stella Kramrisch and Heinrich Zimmer shared with Ananda
Coomaraswamy a deep empathy for the origins, meanings, and motivations of Indian art. Stella
was to a great extent successful in claiming the long-denied status of 'fine art' for Indian
sculpture, painting, and architecture. As different from the writings of Coomaraswamy, for
whom the 'outer' form of art was a means to approach the beauty and purpose of its inner
meaning, Kramrisch also verbalized the undeniable artistic merit of Indian art and the
relationship of the 'outer' form and style of Indian art with its 'internal' processes, metaphysical,
ritualistic, and aesthetic. Through Hegelian readings (zeitgeist) and by drawing Indian parallels
with his interpretation of the 'Classic' in Greek sculpture, she attempted to bridge the 'spirit' and
'form' chasm in Indian art. The specific treatment of space and time in the arts of India,
especially its bearing on human anatomy, perspective, proportion, and the relationship of humans
to nature in art, were addressed by Kramrisch and also by Zimmer. Heinrich Zimmer's writings
reveal an emphasis on the interrelationships between myth, religion, philosophy, and art.

Studies in Indian iconography (pratimäft lakñaëati and iconology (pratimäftvijiänati thus had
remained focused Initially on Identifications, terminology, and classifications arrived at through
intense and meticulous text image studies, specifically about the plethora of religious Imagery,
classified by their varied sthänas (body positions), äyudhas (attributes and weapons), äsanas
(stances), mudräs (postures), hastas (hand gestures), pädaftbhedas (leg positions), colors, etc.
T.A. Gopinath Rao's expansive research, Elements of Hindu Iconography remains a standard
reference on the subject. Gopinath Rao drew from a cross-section of ancient and medieval
compendia - shästras, saågrahas, puräëas, ägamas, and tantras - and related these to the images of
Hindu deities. Benoytosh Bhattacharya explicated Buddhist Iconography by drawing exhaustive
references from important texts on Buddhist Iconography. Such as the Sädhanamälä and
Niñpannayogävalė and also critically edited these texts.

Colonial misrepresentations of Indian art had for long been critiqued by Nationalists who rose in
Its defense and in doing so, reiterated the 'otherworldliness' of Indian art, often to the exclusion
of more practical and earthy concerns. Niharranjan Ray's important contributions to the study
of early Indian art favored the sociological method as a corrective, though he also believed that
the processes of art could not always be explained by the socioeconomic forces at work. Ray's
focus was on establishing Indian art on a firm humanistic, artistic, and social basis. R.N. Misra
for ancient and medieval northern Indian artists, and B.N. Goswamy for the miniature painters of
medieval northern Indian hill states. The assumed anonymity of the ancient Indian artist and its
explanations couched in the metaphysical were brought to critical examination by these scholars.
Gendered issues of spectatorship and representation were first addressed by Vidya Dehejia who
drew attention to methodological concerns in the Indian context. Dehejia questioned the rationale
of applying Western feminist critiques, given that much of ancient Indian art is encountered in a
sacred context.

Reviewing interrelationships pre-historic art has remained marginalized from mainstream Indian
art historical discourse since the time of its 'discovery' in the last decades of the nineteenth
century and even after V.S. Wakankar's spectacular find of the prehistoric rock paintings at
Bhimbetka in 1957. Similar is the treatment of Harappan art and architecture with newer and
interdisciplinary approaches emerging largely from outside mainstream art history writings.
Himanshu Prabha Roy questions the art history and highlights the religious identity in art.
Drawing examples from the writings of Fergusson, Burgess, and Cousens, and also from more
recent scholarship, she highlights how colonial constructs in Indian architectural history have
instilled the notion of a linear succession of the origins and decline of religions- Buddhist, Jain,
and Hindu-as antagonistic to each other, with coexistence being ruled out. She provides
examples of various recent colonial writings that provide a more cohesive picture of coexistence
as compared to the confrontational and hostile relationship between religions.

From its shared beginnings with archaeology in the nineteenth century, art history gradually
evolved into an independent disciplinary practice in India. This is very maturing of the
discipline. Its ever-expanding scope and object domain have led it to engage with concerns that
tie up yet again and variously so with Archaeology, History, Anthropology, Art Conservation,
Archival, and Museum Studies, as also other specialized areas of research such as Film, Theatre,
and Performance Studies. The emergence of visual culture as an important branch of study and
the potential of art and visual culture in history writing, for example, a subject of much research
in the West, is only gradually beginning to make its presence felt in the Indian context. Thus, the
historiography of Indian Art throws light on various scholastic contests with varied intellectual
strands. Art in Indian tradition was never considered materialistic perfection but was a spiritual
exercise that paved the way for Shadhana and Bhava in life.

Conclusion

The evolution of art history in India, from its roots intertwined with archaeology to an
independent and multifaceted discipline, reflects its dynamic growth and expanding horizons.
This journey has led to intersections with various fields, including history, anthropology, and
performance studies while embracing emerging branches like visual culture. As Indian art history
aligns itself with global trends, it continues to explore key themes such as form, style, patronage,
and social contexts, maintaining a balance between innovation and tradition.

The discipline's vitality lies in its adaptability—bridging the past and present, revisiting
foundational methods, and embracing new evidence and methodologies. At its core, however, the
art historian's perceptive eye and empathetic engagement with art remain paramount. Indian art
history thrives as a continuum of perspectives and methods, challenging binaries of "new" and
"old." Its progress depends on a reflective yet forward-looking approach that deepens our
understanding of artistic creation, representation, and reception across time. This ever-evolving
discipline stands as a testament to the richness and complexity of India's artistic heritage and its
enduring relevance in the global discourse.

Extra points
Parul Pandya Dhar's article

Parul Pandya Dhar's article "Indian Art History: Changing Perspectives" provides an insightful
analysis of the evolution of Indian art history and its changing perspectives over time. The article
explores the orientalist and nationalist viewpoints of Indian art and their critiques and highlights
the need for a more critical and interdisciplinary approach to the study of Indian art. The article
begins by examining the Orientalist perspective on Indian art, which was dominant during the
colonial period. According to this perspective, Indian art was primitive, exotic, and essentially
different from the Western art tradition. The Orientalist perspective was Eurocentric and
emphasized the formal and aesthetic qualities of Indian art rather than its cultural and social
contexts. However, in the postcolonial era, there has been a shift towards a more contextual and
interdisciplinary approach to Indian art history. This approach seeks to understand Indian art
within the broader historical and philosophical traditions of South Asia and emphasizes the
cultural and social contexts of Indian art. The article then turns to the nationalist perspective on
Indian art, which emerged in the early 20th century as part of the broader struggle for Indian
independence. This perspective sought to create a distinctively Indian style of art that reflected
the country's cultural and spiritual traditions and reflected the aspirations of the Indian people for
cultural autonomy and self-expression. However, this perspective has also been subject to
critique and challenge. Critics argue that it can be limiting and fails to appreciate the diversity
and complexity of Indian artistic traditions. Dhar explores the critiques of both the orientalist and
nationalist perspectives on Indian art. The orientalist perspective has been criticized for its
tendency to reduce Indian art to a set of formal and stylistic characteristics, rather than seeing it
as an expression of broader cultural and philosophical ideas. Additionally, the Orientalist
perspective has been criticized for its tendency to exoticize and romanticize Indian culture while
ignoring the diversity and complexity of Indian society. The nationalist perspective, on the other
hand, has been criticized for its tendency towards essentialism and exclusion. Critics argue that it
can be limiting and fails to appreciate the diversity and complexity of Indian artistic traditions.
The nationalist perspective often focuses on a narrow range of art forms and styles and does not
account for the historical and cultural context of Indian art. Dhar concludes by emphasizing the
importance of a critical and interdisciplinary approach to Indian art history that can appreciate its
richness and complexity while also recognizing its historical and cultural context. She argues that
by engaging in ongoing dialogue and critique, scholars and critics can continue to deepen our
understanding of Indian art and its cultural significance. In summary, Parul Pandya Dhar's article
provides a comprehensive overview of the orientalist and nationalist perspectives on Indian art
and highlights the need for a contextual and interdisciplinary approach to the study of Indian art.
The article emphasizes the importance of ongoing dialogue and critique to deepen our
understanding of this rich and diverse artistic tradition. By exploring the critiques of both the
orientalist and nationalist perspectives, Dhar encourages scholars and critics to adopt a more
critical and inclusive approach to the study and appreciation of Indian art.

Trace the historiographical shifts in the study of Ancient Indian art and architecture.

The academic study of Indian Art and Architecture began in the colonial period in the late
seventeenth century, with the works of scholars like William Jones, James Fergusson, and John
Marshall, who are referred to by art historians as Orientalists. The Orientalist writing emerging
from the vantage point of Western academicians and art criticism, subjected Indian art to a
critical study, decoupling it with the earlier medieval assumption of Indian art as being
‘monstrous’. While the inquiry was substantial and incipient, European biases could not be
removed. The Orientalists formulated the view that everything good in Indian paintings,
sculptures, and architecture was borrowed from Europe. This condescending view of Orientalist
scholars toward Indian art was criticized by a new wave of Orientalist scholars in the nineteenth
century as stated by Tapati Guha Thakurta. These scholars advocated for an Indigenous origin of
Indian art and emphasized the need for looking at the aesthetic and ‘inward’ qualities of
sculptures and paintings as opposed to the Orientalists whom the former saw had disassociated
Indian art from its context.

The New Orientalists, in their aims and visions, laid the foundation of the Nationalist approach
to the study of Indian Art and Architecture. The most influential of the Nationalist School were
Rajendra Lal Mitra, Anand K Coomaraswamy, and European scholars like E.B. Havells and
Stella Kramrisch. The Nationalists believed in the native origin of Indian art traditions. They
aimed to employ art as a means for generating a sense of Indianness and reconstructing what
they held as the glorious past of the country. The essay discusses in depth the perception of
Indian art, broadly from the thirteenth century to the twentieth century, its reception in Europe
based on accounts of travelers as well as the academic study that began in the colonial period and
how this approach changed later.

The Images of Monsters- Indian Art through the Account of travelers from the mid-thirteenth to
late seventeenth century

Patha Mitter believes that the period from the middle of the thirteenth century till the end of the
seventeenth century was the formative phase of the reception of Indian art for the Western
audience. The agency for bringing up Indian art knowledge to Europe was the several travelers
who frequented South Asia during this period. These accounts Mitter notes, were far from truth
and objectivity and were rooted in medieval Christian traditions, bearing European stereotypes.
The earliest traveler whose accounts left a mark on European imagery was the Venetian traveler
Marco Polo, who visited India in the late 13th century. His accounts of coming across the
devadasis in a temple in South India were painted by French artist Boucicaut in an illustration for
a manuscript(Figure 1). The painting, though depicting the Indian devadasis, had nothing
Indigenous or any sense of realism in it. Rather, the dancers appeared to be modeled as blonde
European nuns. This European rendering of Indian themes and subjects continued for a long time
in Western painting traditions, owing to the ‘schema’, the artist was subject to. The ‘schema’ or
the ‘stereotype’, for the artist who was basing his imagination on the descriptions of the
traveler’s accounts. In this endeavor, Partha Mitter points out that the artist was striving to
showcase the ‘unknown’ (stories from Asia and other Eastern countries), through the ‘known’, or
the European skills he was endowed with

The depiction of Indian gods and goddesses belonging to the Buddhist and Hindu traditions as
demons and monsters surfaced for two primary reasons. The belief stemming from the classical
traditions that the land lying to the east of Europe was inhabited by demons and monstrous
creatures, expounded from works of authors like Pliny, Herodotus, and Megasthenes. The other
reason was more religious, and anchored by the Catholic Church, viewing all pagan religions as
the creation of the devil. In the latter exercise, Indian gods were also subjected to the same
treatment as the biblical demons. Ludovico Varthema who had traveled to the southern part of
India in the early sixteenth century (1503-1508), wrote his travel account ‘Itinerario’, where he
stated that the king of the port town of Calicut was a worshipper of both God and Devil. He even
called the Indian gods chiseled on stone walls demons. Varthema’s Itinerario was popular
throughout Europe and several painted illustrations were made on his vivid textual imagery. The
most popular is the painting of the king of Calicut himself who looks like a monster and his
attributes are similar to the horrifying figures, a European audience would come across as the
image of hell as described by Dante Alighieri. The three crowns, horns, and dragons depicted are
elements seen in European painting traditions.

Overall, this period of reception of Indian art in the West was derogatory and extremely biased,
although, some travelers did acknowledge the skills and technology behind temple architecture.
The end of the seventeenth century saw a reduction in the devil imagery with demand arising for
accurate pictures of Indian gods. This stimulation was geared toward the development of
scientific knowledge in European countries in the contemporary period.

Study of Ancient and Medieval Indian Art and Architecture –

the Orientalist PhaseParul Pandya Dhar, says that the formal inception and institutionalization of
art history in India began in the late 18th and early 19th century. The keystone in this
development was the formation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by William Jones in 1784. The
interest initially served more of a utilitarian purpose of looking at objects from the past not as
sources of study but as handicrafts, manufactured goods, or were seen only as remnants of the
past. The Indian past was visualized as serene. , mysterious, and romantic as seen in the
picturesque paintings of William Hodges and Daniells. The image that was conjured acted as a
repulse to the state of impoverishment in the country. Although art history was primarily derived
from textual sources and was detached from a monument or site-centric approach, some
Orientalists like Colin Mackenzie, integrated the study of manuscripts and inscriptions with the
practices like preparation of maps or documentation of sites (like the AmravatiStupa), in their
studies.The nineteenth century saw a more systematic and methodological study of art and
architecture.Extensive surveys, archiving, documentation, and reporting were carried on even
though there was also mass degeneration and looting of artifacts in the country. Joachim Buatze
enhanced the scope of study through visual aids and thus photographed historical sites and
objects. James Fergusson brought a rationalized study of architecture in the Indian context. His
documentation was not simply coming from the available literature, but from approaches that
took the monument in its totality using techniques like making lithographs and photographs. He
also devised a more comparative study approach, where he took Indian art into account of art
traditions of classical Greek and ancient Egyptians. Fergusson, however, was of the view,
believing in the superiority of Western art and aesthetics. His interpretations were inclined
toward religious biasedness and such kind of classification of Indian historical studies, prevails
even today. Also, the disassociation with textual sources and extreme emphasis on comparative
studies led to the creation of many falsified theories, like the origin of Indian temple architecture
was solely attributed to having evolved from the Buddhist Stupa architecture like the Sanchi
Stupa.
The earliest category of Indian sculptures, that were studied, was the Gandharan art of the North
Western provinces of India, carried on by John Marshall. Marshall’s view was like Fergusson's,
steeped in colonial conviction. The Gandharansculptures were seen as superior to other Indian
sculptures because of the Greco-Roman influence on them. This association corroborated the
colonial belief that everything good in Indian art was derived from the accident.The New
OrientalistsIt was in the late nineteenth century, that, Tapati Guha Thakurta believes, a shift in
the Orientalist perspective is seen in what she calls the beginning of the new Orientalist phase.
While the influence of Western traditions lingered on, the Indian artist in the late nineteenth
century Bengal was also influenced by the sense of India’s past heritage and was given a
prestigious stand as the rebuilder of the country’s rich lost past. The proponents of the new
Orientalism were E.B. Havells and Anand KCoomaraswamy, who believed in the resurrection of
dying handicraft traditions and were also defending Indian art and aesthetics. The earlier belief
of William Jones, of art objects being only remnants of the past was replaced in this new
orientalist front by looking at the sublime, spiritual, and inward qualities of Indian art. The new
orientalists had thus created an alternative orientalist perspective outside the hegemonic
European thought according to Thakurta. E.B. Havells saw Indian art as a testament to its
glorious past as well as a living or surviving craft tradition. He was critical of the state of art
study and administration under the colonial government. A.K. Coomaraswamy was a pioneer in
his attempt to study Indian art by creating a synthesis between the object and the text. He
extensively studied the Vedic, post-Vedic, Buddhist, and Jaina canonical texts written on Indian
art and architecture along with the study of paintings, sculptures, and numismatics.Both Havells
and Coomaraswamy proliferated the spiritual study of Indian art and architecture as well as
stressed the nativity of Indianness of the art traditions of the country. The nativity was stated
byCoomaraswamy for he challenged the Grecian origin of Buddhist art, claiming the Yakshi and
the Buddha sculptures as creations of the subcontinent. In the study of Havells and
Coomaraswamydefining Indianness became a paradigm for art historical studies. This Indianness
was founded on the religion and philosophy of the various ancient sects of the Indian
subcontinent. Thakutra notes that history by the new orientalists was seen as “a paradigm of
antiquity and originality”. This orientalist scholarship was a search for ‘real and ‘idealist’ India.
Essentialism was seen in the sublime and spiritual quality of Indian art and Havells and
Coomaraswamy were critical of Indian archaeological practices, believing them to be devoid of
aesthetical studies. For Coomaraswamy, Indian painting and sculptures were a portal to Indian
spirituality and all the different phases were subsumed in an encompassing Indo – Aryan culture
to the extent that even the Persian elements in Mughal miniature paintings were classified as
derivatives from Hindu traditions. This trinity of ‘art’, ‘tradition’, and‘Indianness’, of the new
Orientalists, in reality, led to the reinforcement of the theories of the earlier classical Orientalist
scholars, of observing a ‘timeless Indian past’. This spiritual reading led to a more emotional
than academic rendering of the art and proper methodological study or classification of art
periods was not undertaken. The new orientalists, although critiquing the Western historians for
neglecting to find indigeneity in Indian art, ended up strengthening the European notion of
Indian art as the exotic other of Western art.Study of Ancient and Medieval Indian Art and
Architecture – the Nationalist PhaseThe Nationalists were against the Western dominance and
stereotypes through which the Indian art traditions were being judged. They were similar to the
new orientalists for they were searching for the origins, rationality, inner meaning, and
‘Indianness’ of Indian art. Anand K Coomarswmay was thus at the forefront of this new
perspective according to Parul Dhar. Iconography and symbolism were linked with historical
texts to understand the Art and Architecture of ancient India. Dhar also states that some
European scholars like Stella Kramrisch and Heinrich Zimmer were also proponents of the
nationalist school of thought.At the core of the nationalist school lay the belief in nativeness in
art. Rajendralal Mitra, the forerunner of the nationalist phase was deeply imbued by the Aryan
origin of stone architecture in India. He critiqued Fergusson for the latter’s assertion of Indian art
traditions having a Greek origin.Mitra’s area of study was largely modern-day Odisha, where
essentially the architectural traditions reflected the pristine and ‘authentic’ traditions of the past.
It is, however, essential to note that both Dhar and Thakurta point out that although the call of
nationalist art scholars was towards looking at Indian art as absolute in itself, their way of
approaching art objects for the study was European in fashion. Rajendralal Mitra has trained in
Greco-Roman art history scholarship, while the writings of another such scholar Ram Raz were
maneuvered by British sentimentality and Western readership.
The target of the newly emerging scholarship was the growing middle class in Bengal especially.
Thescholars were able to proliferate their arguments among the common masses through
illustratedmagazines and art journals. The scholarship of Indian art thus became a form of high
literary culturein the social sphere.The noteworthy aspect of the Indianness of the nationalist
school is pointed out by Ratan Parimoo.Scholars like Stella Kramrisch and Heinrich Zimmer,
who were trained in Austro-German arttraditions, were empathetic to the nationalist rendering of
the spiritual and philosophical in Indian art.Kramrisch, through her writing, strived to bridge the
gap between the ‘form’ and the ‘spirit’ in arttraditions. She was, Dhar says, filling the void left
by Coomaraswamy, by verbalising the latter’sspiritual narratives of art. Zimmer was also
intrigued by this philosophical angle and he contributed tothis study by approaching the topic of
Indology in a more cross-disciplinary manner.The nationalists were not simply art historians
discussing Indian art. There were some who wereartists themselves who were trying to bring out
Indianness through their art. The key proponent of thistradition was Abanindranath Tagore, who
according to Havells, was “the real hope and future ofIndian art”. Abanindranath was one of the
first artists who was a scholar as well. He wrote the BharatShilpa in 1901, for highlighting the
greatness of Indian art and the need for its revival.ConclusionThe study of Indian Art and
Architecture as stated, did originate from a colonial framework, and wasthus modelled on the
European manner of study. However, even the Nationalists who were against theOrientalists in
the latter’s Western hegemony of art history in India, also followed the precedent set upby the
Orientalists. Though, nativity was an important aspect of the study of the Nationalist
scholars,they also looked at other cultural traditions in their studies. Abanindranath Tagore’s
incorporation ofthe Japanese watercolour technique and art critic style similar to Japanese critic
Okakura, signifiesthat there were various divergent strands within the different schools looking
at the history of Art andArchitecture in India.