Indian Painting under the Mughals, A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1750 c20.29

c20.29

While the Mughals inherited the love of portraiture from their Mongol ancestors, it cannot be said that it was quite the same instinct which prompted both people to like the same thing. Several centuries of civilized life separated the latter from the former, and there was a vast difference between the mental outlook of the barbaric Central Asian tribes and their more refined descendants in India. It was not the almost childish desire displayed by his primitive predecessors for the curious in art which inspired the Mughal, for he had advanced a stage beyond that, but it was ordinary human vanity that led him to take an ardent interest in portraiture. This is shown not only in the numerous individual likenesses of the Mughal emperors, but in those frequent representations of court scenes and ceremonies, in which they are the central figures, elevated above all others. As it was the custom for the monarch to have himself so depicted, similar representations of the less important people about the Mughal court became the fashion. All conditions were favourable for the development of this art, as the atmosphere of the time was a supremely personal one, and every individual was eager for some form of immortality, historical or pictorial. It was an age of materialism, and portraiture seemed to be one of the means of satisfying an obvious craving for the realities of life, for there is nothing illusory in a likeness—it is a definite and concrete fact of the person’s existence. To meet the demand were many artists, Persian and Indian, with a traditional and instinctive gift for portraiture. These artists were fortunate in their patrons who had an insatiable desire for their work, while on their part the Mughals were fortunate in finding such talent ready and awaiting their orders. The portrait painter of the time was a master of his craft. His pictures are a model of fineness and finish, and in the amount of character that they exhibit have not often been excelled. Stored in his mind was much knowledge of human nature, so that he saw not only the face of his sitter, but, reflected in it, the man himself. Contemporary writers may have described such a person as they thought he would like to be known—in fulsome and flattering language, according to the custom of the historian of the time. But almost unintentionally the artist presents us not only with the truth and the whole truth, but something more. Either knowingly or sub-consciously he wrung out his secrets, and painted him as his deeds had marked him, noble or petty, cruel or kind, generous or mean, true or false, strong or weak, each according to his nature is revealed by means of the delicate outlining and subtle modelling of this gifted character-delineator.