I

• Periodization of Indian art is often based on dynastic labels like Maurya art, Gupta art, Mughal painting, etc., which can be misleading.
• Such labels denote the chronology or geographical origin of art forms but may not reflect the direct influence of royal patrons.
• Dynastic art (Maurya, Mughal) reflects royal patronage, but Sunga, Gupta, Chola art does not necessarily reflect the patronage of the ruling dynasties.
• Dynastic labels hinder proper social and formal analysis of art and its content.
• Large-scale monuments like Udayagiri, Mahabalipuram, Ajanta, Ellora, Khajuraho, and Konark were initiated and supported by kings but reflect the collective religious and socio-religious ethos of the time, not individual royal preferences.
• Art and architecture often reflect the beliefs, ideologies, tastes, and myths of communities, rather than the individual preferences of royal patrons.
• Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical art was generally initiated and patronized by local communities, merchants, and guilds, with occasional support from royalty.
• Art associated with the Brahmanical tradition often had rich individual patrons and groups of devotees, but the content still reflected the collective ideals of the community.
• Manuscript illustrations (Buddhist, Jain, Brahmanical) had a limited clientele, often restricted to monastic, priestly, and scholarly communities.
• Court libraries and studios created art for a small, elite audience, but even here, the art represented the collective ideas of the respective communities.
• Art intended for public places (stupa gates, temple walls, vihara halls) had to appeal to a wider audience, representing the general society’s beliefs, myths, aspirations, and everyday life.
• Ajanta, Ellora, Sanchi, Khajuraho, and Konark depict the entire spectrum of human life and experiences for the common people.
• Traditional Indian art is largely anonymous, except for Mughal and some Rājasthāni and Pāhādi schools.
• In pre-Mughal times, only a few names of artists and architects are known, with rare instances of signatures.
• The anonymity of traditional Indian art reflects its collective nature, aiming to represent the ethos, ideologies, and myths of the community rather than individual creativity.
• Art and craft were not distinguished in pre-industrial societies; artists were regarded as skilled craftsmen and worked in guilds.
• Major art projects were often collaborative efforts, with contributions from apprentices, family members, and professional guilds.
• The individuality of artists was not emphasized, as the focus was on the collective expression of the community’s values and beliefs.
• The contribution of each artist was part of a collective effort, making the art anonymous.
• Medieval Iranian art did not feature artist signatures until the end of the 14th century, with Junaya Naqqash Sultani being the first known artist to sign a painting.
• By the beginning of the 16th century, with the influence of Bihzad, the practice of signing paintings became a common custom in Iran.
• The earliest examples of Mughal painting (such as Dastan-i-Amir-Hamzā) did not bear signatures, indicating the Mughal court was not familiar with the Iranian practice initially.
• By 1570, the practice of signing paintings became more common in Mughal art, although many paintings remained unsigned.
• Mughal painting represents a departure from earlier traditions, with the recognition of the artist as an individualwith a unique identity, rather than just a member of the community.
• This shift from collective consciousness to individual autonomy is significant and cannot be attributed solely to the Iranian influence on the Mughal court.
• The change aligns with the broader historical trend during the 15th and 16th centuries, when the Renaissance in Western Europe emphasized the individual as an autonomous entity.
• The Renaissance in Europe released the individual from the collective mindset, which is evident in Christian art and the rise of signed works by artists.
• The Mughal court may have adopted the form of signed paintings but lacked an understanding of the deeper implications of individual autonomy in art, which were seen during the Renaissance in Europe.
• Portraiture in Mughal art, especially of royalty and dignitaries, also aligns with the Renaissance emphasis on individualism, where artists focused on capturing the unique features of a person.
• Mughal portraiture differed from European Renaissance portraiture in media, technique, and approach but shared the goal of emphasizing individuality.
• Mughal painting did not have the same social context as the European Renaissance; it was court-based and lacked the broader support from a democratic bourgeois clientele.
• Mughal painting‘s focus on individuality was more of a fashion than a cultural shift, and it did not permeate the broader Indian society in the same way as Renaissance art in Europe.
• In Indian plastic arts, anonymity remains the norm, similar to performing arts like music, dance, and theatre, where individual artists are rarely known before the 19th century.
• Tänsen, an exception in the world of Indian music, proves the general rule of anonymity in traditional arts.
• In music and dance, the focus was on the style or school (passed down through guru-shishya parampara) rather than the individual artist.
• Literate arts like poetry, songs, and dramas often included the name of the author in the bhanita or colophon at the end, especially in literate communities.
• Brahmanical communities, being more literate, had a higher status for poets, composers, and playwrights, compared to artists in other performing and non-performing arts.
• Non-literate folk communities also followed the practice of including an author’s name in their works, even if they were of lower castes, gaining esteem among their peers.