Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c19.78

c19.78

The work is much freer and shows much greater knowledge of the human figure than any work now done; but is equally less ideal in character and less religious. Perhaps we cannot judge much from this single surviving example of what must have been a great school, working over a very extended area, and partly affected by Chinese influence.† Their one great value is the demonstration of the fact that the work of the Ajaṇṭa school was so widespread. A controversy has arisen as to whether the artists were Sinhalese or Indian. The point is of little real importance. The Chinese and others at this time thought exceedingly highly of Sinhalese images, which goes to show that art of a high type flourished in Ceylon; and suggests that the painters may also have been indigenous; but if so, it can hardly be claimed that the school was so,—only that it was so widespread as to have representatives even in Ceylon. The fact that the work differs so much from all modern work suggests that special conditions made it possible. As regards technique it is true that the work is much more enduring in character than any now done; but I do not know that it was necessarily oil colour. The painters of to-day have a method of varnishing water colour work, so as to make it very durable. There are outdoor paintings at Riḍi Vihāra; the rock wall over the vihāra is covered with remains of paintings of priests on a plaster surface now much broken away (see p. 165, above). I do not know in what manner these were executed, as they were inaccessible; they date from the eighteenth century. The problems raised by the Sigiriya paintings are many and hard, but lie mainly outside the scope of the present volume; the chief concern is the place of the school in relation to the historical evolution of modern Sinhalese art.