A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c7.36

c7.36

Another familiar and more serious depreciatory criticism is based on the frequent introduction into Hindu art of monstrous and impossible forms, often grotesque, and not rarely hideous. To my mind it appears impossible to defend the representation of such forms on artistic grounds. The spirited Polonnāruwa bronzes of the dancing Siva (Chap. VII, § 7 B) are grievously marred as works of art by the hideous extra arm brought across the chest. The symbolical significance of additional arms, heads, and so forth to a devout worshipper is not to the purpose. But the defenders of such monstrosities as being legitimate in art allege the emotional and intellectual value of the symbolism as the one reason for tolerating their presence. The argument is fallacious in mixing up two totally distinct things—edification and art—and, if accepted, would justify the description of crude woodcuts in old Bibles as works of art. Dr. Coomaraswamy quotes with approval the following rhetorical passage from the writings of Lafcadio Hearn, the enthusiastic admirer of things Japanese:—