Bibliography of Indian philosophies
No TL;DR found
Abstract
that "In some centuries everyone loves simplicity . . . [in others] sculptors prefer studied dignity and what they call 'good taste'" and the proclamation that "we deal with the beauty of sculpture" (p. i) , the reader senses with accurate foreboding that the author will fail to detect and annotate the latent pressures within one style that dictate the manifestations of the succeeding style. Having dismissed the relevance of historical context and the varied "genetic" elements of artistic style in India, Fabri chooses the touching teleological argument that art moves from "archaic" to "classical" to "mannerist" to "baroque" to "rococo," depositing us at "The End of Sculpture:" the Hoysalesvara style which is "clever, brilliant, astonishingly skilful and laborious; but is no more great sculpture" (p. 81). When least obtrusive, such a framework provides only the annoyance of triviality; when utilized exclusively as an analytical model, such codification cedes pernicious results. Two examples must suffice. After rhapsodizing upon the "classical" ideal of Gupta art and "the noble purpose of creating beauty," Fabri finds that "there is a dignity and nobility in classic art that allows no exaggeration, no excess, no overstatement, no dramatization" (p. 23). One wonders how this description could possibly fit the paintings at Cave 1 and 17 at Ajanta. Then, in discussing the east facade of the Arjunaratha at Mamalla-puram, Fabri concludes that the two female figures, guard, and elephant cum mahout must be dated c. 450 A.D. because a later date would be impossible "for so classic, so perfect, so peaceful a composition as this" (p. 25). Fabri evinces no concern over the fact that Mahendravarman and Narasimhavarman (c. 600-660 A.D.) were responsible for the site under consideration. More outrageous is Fabri's labeling the great Gandharan image of the ascetic Siddhartha in the Lahore Museum as an "early mannerist" and sixth century work. Fabri claims that "Hellenistic elements are difficult to discover," and proceeds to insist upon a post-Gupta date for the work because "the distinct tendency to shock and to dramatize are clear departures from the classical style" JOURNAL OF ASIAN STUDIES