Indian Painting under the Mughals, A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1750 c20.64

c20.64

Until the reign of Aurangzeb, or the middle of the seventeenth century, the art of portraiture, following the course of Mughal painting generally, was an aristocratic one belonging almost exclusively to the court. Then, owing to causes which have been described in another place, a more popular demand arose, emanating from a larger class, which soon showed that it would be content with a production of a lower standard than that prepared heretofore. In the course of time this demand caused this art to fall from its high estate, to cease to be even a craft, and to degenerate into a mere trade, which took the form of reproducing copies of portraits by means of paper stencils. In the case of historical notabilities, there usually existed one or more accepted types of portrait. In the very ancient or semi-mythical portraits these had been obtained from previous copies, and these again from still earlier ones, until it is evident that the presumed ‘ type ’ can only be a tradition. When, however, the person depicted had lived in a less remote age, the type was a portrait painted directly from the sitter, varying, of course, according to the artist's capabilities, but nevertheless very often an extremely able but conventional representation of the man and his most striking characteristics. From the type-portrait careful tracings were made, and by means of ‘ pouncing ’ each copy, any number of duplicates could be prepared. Large numbers of historical tracing-paper ‘ stencils ’ were, until a few years ago, in the possession of the descendants of the old miniature painters, and formed an important part of their professional equipment. Such ‘ pouncing ’ covers a large and interesting field, from Suhrab, a hero of early Persian legend, to the last Mughal emperor of Delhi, with almost every person of note in between. Only recently it was possible to secure in the Punjab a portrait of Alexander the Great, with typical Grecian features and helmet, obviously only a mythical likeness but still even now in demand. When, however, the art had arrived at this stage portraiture had completely lost its original spontaneity and charm. The figure had so deteriorated that it always appeared as a stereotyped composition with the same pose, the same look, the same arrangement of the hands, the same costume, the same background, and the same scheme of uninspiring colouring. We see nothing but a wearisome procession of people badly drawn and often worse painted, yet nevertheless even in this degenerate form the art has lingered on to the present day. Descendants of the old Mughal painters still carry on their profession in the bazaars of Delhi, reproducing on disks of ivory or bone any member of the dynasty according to order, but these are mere characterless copies of the original portraiture of the Mughals.