MODERNITY Vs. TRADITION IN INDIAN ART

DR. P. V. RAJAMANNAR

Chief Justice of Madras (Retired)

The dichotomy between tradition and modernity is to a certain extent artificial and sometimes illusory. What was looked upon as radically new 50 years ago, and even ridiculed at the time, has now fast become a part of tradition: “In art, as in many other aspects of life, often what appears to be radically new is indignantly repulsed as an affront to good taste or even to morals by the first generation to meet it, begins to be accepted by the second, is honoured as a classic by the third and is either ignored or rejected by the fourth.”

It would not be correct to say that tradition refers to the past and modernity to the present. There are several things in vogue at the present time which are more or less revivals of things from the ancient past. By tradition here we generally mean a bundle of artistic principles, including methods and techniques based on accumulated experience and continuous usage, handed down from the previous to the succeeding generations. ‘Modernity’ literally means ‘of the present’. But it has acquired a secondary meaning which makes it applicable to something new and something which is not antiquated.

The river of Indian Art tradition has not been a single unmixed flow as water running through a pipe. Many streams have joined it in its long course; many sources have contributed to its volume and nature. The Moghul school of painting had its origin in the Persian Art of Samarkand and Herat. It was therefore as alien as the Moghuls themselves to India. But in the same way as the Moghuls became gradually absorbed into the people of India, so Moghul painting came to be regarded as an Integral part of the art of India. In the history of Indian sculpture, the Greek influence dominated the Gandhara scnool. In architecture also, the effect of the Moghul invasion, which brought with it Saracenic styles of building, led to a synthesis of the old Hindu style and the new Saracenic style. Who can deny that the Taj and Humayun’s Tomb and the monuments of Fatehpur Sikri belong to Indian architectural tradition?

In recent times many young artists have greatly, even passionately, sought inspiration from the latest European schools. Impressionism, Cubism, Abstract Art, Surrealism, have each in turn, and together, fascinated many of the younger artists of today. Indeed, there is an apprehension in many quarters that this influence may have the effect of destroying Indian artistic traditions. I remember one friend who, on going through an exhibition of young painters, remarked that the exhibition could well have been an exhibition of young European artists. Undoubtedly, some of the paintings did strike one as second-rate and second-hand imitations of the work of European masters like Praque or Picasso. I believe many of these artists might not have looked at a single painting of these European masters in the original.

Though we can take pride in the glorious artistic tradition of India, it will be idle not to realise that there have been breaks in that tradition, chiefly due to political reasons. The complete disintegration which followed the end of the Moghul Empire and the infiltration of the European nations, ostensibly for commercial purposes, but gradually seeking sovereign powers, and the internecine struggle for supremacy among these European nations, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British, resulted in a total deterioration of artistic endeavour. Maharajas and Nawabs had no doubt painters and other artists attached to their courts. Temples and palaces were being built. But by the time we reach the end of the 19th century, traditional values had ceased to flourish. The British rule not only made the Indian intelligentsia familiar with the treasures of English literature, it also made Indian artists acquainted with the wealth of European painting and sculpture. There was an attempt to stem this Western influence by the members of the Bengal school of painting. They no doubt did a great service in emphasising the necessity for preserving the continuity of India’s artistic tradition. But obviously they could not totally prevent further impact of the later developments of European art on the younger and rising artists of India.

I am not afraid that the influence of Western art forms and methods will destroy the Indian artistic tradition. Craze for mere novelty may, for some time and with some persons, overpower genuineness and sincerity, but that is only a passing phase. The work of several capable artists fills me with confidence in the future of Indian Art, because they have respect for traditional values and at the same time are fully inbued with the spirit of modernity.

The new influences of modern world art must be absorbed by the Indian artist, but he should never forget that his art must ultimately express the genius and spirit of his people. He should not “forget or suppress his racial and national way of seeing, feeling and shaping,” he has to be an Indian artist. Only then, his art, whatever school or style he may be influenced by, will differ from Western art in the same way as Indian thought differs from Western thought. Without this difference, the Indian artist will have no message of his own to give to the world.

The Indian artists of today cannot merely copy or imitate Ajanta or Thanjavur frescoes and pallava sculptures or Chola bronzes. By doing so they cannot further enrich Indian artistic, tradition. They must be fully aware of, and alive to other developments of contemporary Western art as well. They need not reject the fruits of all the experiments nor be impervious to the marvellous achievements of modern European art. Only, they should not merely copy and imitate them, just as I have already said that they should not copy and imitate old Indian masterpieces.

Back