The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.s2.126

v2.c16.s2.126

In judging of sculpture its general appearance is what we have first to deal with, but it is at the same time the most misleading. It is uncertain quantity, liable to be diversified under different circumstances and the knowledge and predilection of the observer, and what may be supposed by one to be decisively similar, may be pronounced by another as radically different in every line and feature. Doubtless, there is such a thing as style in painting and literary composition, which however ethereal and undefinable, is nevertheless easily perceptible by experts, and the same may be said of sculpture; but in the latter case the difficulty of determining it is so very excessive that it cannot be accepted as a satisfactory proof in settling any question at issue with reference to any particular piece of sculpture. There may be, in a statue a suavity of outline, or free treatment of the position of drapery, or general finish in chiselling,—peculiarities which are associated with Greek art,—but they are of no import when closely inspected; and when the enquiry is what is the nationality of a statue found in a foreign soil, it is a flagrant begging of the question to say it must be Greek because it is good. Among the generality of non-professional Europeans, the fallacy of such a decision may not be at once apparent, for in their minds the idea of excellence in art with Greece is intimately associated from infancy; and even with professional men it is not an uncommon error, says Bacon, “to infest their meditations, opinions, and doctrines, with some conceits which they have most admired, or some sciences which they have most applied”; and to give “all things else a tincture according to them, utterly untrue and improper”; but for all that the fallacy exists, and to those who are above such influences, cannot but be striking.