Mediaeval Sinhalese Art c7.140

c7.140

With regard to the conventionalism of Buddhist (and Hindu) art, and the strict rules of proportion for the figure, we shall see that these probably originated (in India) amongst a class of more or less priestly craftsmen perhaps, indeed probably, before the decay of Buddhism in India, not among the monks themselves. Just how long ago the rules were formulated is uncertain (to hazard a guess, by the fifth century A.D., before the final decline of Buddhism in India, and when the craftsmen were still required to satisfy the requirements both of Buddhists and of Hindus), but no doubt one object of them was to make possible the reproduction of images in sufficient quantity by average workmen at all times. This, rightly, I think, sets religious above ‘artistic’ considerations; but, art having thus sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, the rest was added to it. For such convention is a far greater help than hindrance to real art. It does not prevent the man of genius from producing the most beautiful work possible, though ensuring that it shall so far conform to an accepted standard as to be immediate and universal in its appeal; at the same time it does prevent the possibility of “the holy and elevating subjects being treated absurdly or stupidly, so as to wound the feelings of serious men”; which happens every day now that the old tradition is generally broken with. It is true that present-day painters and imagers have no feeling for the human figure, and images of Buddha are usually wooden and unrefined, sometimes even repulsive in aspect; yet even the worst traditional work is preferable to the weak, effeminate and sensuous drawing of low-country workmen, who under Western influence have attempted a more naturalistic style, without any training whatever, and certainly without taste. The Burmese alabaster Buddhas now so fashionable are equally offensive. The old tradition did really ensure a certain dignity of treatment, however blindly and unfeelingly its rules were followed. What is now needed is for men who do understand the human figure (—as the makers of the tradition must have done—) and whose faith is real, to work willingly and consciously on traditional lines, welcoming the tradition as a help, not rejecting it as a hindrance; for the artist cannot again command the hearts of men, without some relation to the symbols that have for so long appealed to them, and with which are bound up such manifold and complex associations, and so much that is changeless and eternal.