A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c9.s2.59

c9.s2.59

The change does not correspond with a deliberate resolve to substitute a generalized ideal for a realistic form. It simply indicates a decline of skill in animal sculpture in the round. The case does not support the theory of Dr. Coomaraswamy that the animals represented in Oriental decorative art need not resemble any beast on the face of the earth, and are the better for their lack of likeness. According to his view, 'the sculptured lions of Egypt, Assyria, or India are true works of art; for in them we see, not any lion that could to-day be shot or photographed in a desert, but the lion as he existed in the minds of a people, a lion that tells us something of the people who represents him.'¹ The theory thus enunciated certainly does not apply to elephants and monkeys, which notoriously are represented in Indian art, both plastic and pictorial, with the utmost fidelity to nature and the fullest understanding of the character of both animals, as may be seen from many examples in this book. It is not easy to perceive why a bad lion should be extolled in preference to a good elephant. Probably the critic cited was anxious to justify the fearsome beasts so common in Ceylonese art, which certainly could not be found in any desert. But the theory does not fit the case even of lions, because nobody can deny that the best lions in Indian sculpture are those of Asoka's time, which are by far the most naturalistic.