Indian Art Schools during the British Raj

Analysing two texts regarding the Indian art education under the British Raj and understanding its impact on Indian artists and society.

The dynamics of the relationship between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ have changed over time but has been, no doubt, largely defined by the period of colonial superiority of the West. During the territorial expansions of the West, the cultures of the colonies faced destruction as the West tried to erase traditional beliefs in hopes of modernizing the ‘native’ people with Western values. I have chosen to explore these aspects of the ‘East’/’West’ relationship through the establishment of art schools during the colonial rule (the Raj) over India. I aim to closely discuss two texts, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India by Cecil. L Burns’ and ‘Chapter 2: Art Education and Raj Patronage (1850 -1900)’ from ‘Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922: Occidental orientations by Partha Mitter’.[1]

Cecil L. Burns was an English painter who became the principal of the Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy School of Art from 1899 to 1918. This paper ‘Function of Schools of Art in India’ was read at the 1909 Society Proceedings of the Royal Society of Arts and was followed by a discussion on its content by the residing members, many of whom were prominent art historians such as George Birdwood, E.B. Havell etc. Partha Mitter is a celebrated art historian with a range of publications essential to the scholarship of Indian art. His second chapter in the book ‘Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922’ focuses on the understanding of art schools established under the Raj and how they affected the Indian art community at large.

Imposed Frameworks

After India was declared a colony, the Raj enforced many educational reforms introducing Western philosophies to educate the Indians. One such reform was the establishment of art schools to inculcate an academic understanding of fine arts amongst the ‘natives’. The Raj was biased in the acquisition and presentation of knowledge about Indian arts as the need to proclaim the superiority of Western art over Indian art emerged. Cecil Burns, in the institution of his essay in front of the Royal Society of Arts mentioned the foreign artists in the workforce of Mughal emperors and emphasized how the ‘introduction of new ideas by these foreigners’ resulted in ‘the golden age of Indian artistic work’.[2] This is just one of the instances points in Burns’ essay where the Raj’s stance on Indian art is understood. Burns made it clear, Indian art was admirable but without the intervention of ‘foreign’ influences, India would not have peaked in her artistic abilities.

During this period, the West was battling to determine the distinction between Indian fine and applied arts. On one side, Burns named some of the ‘greatest painters and sculptors of the past’ who ‘have demonstrated the unity of the arts and crafts’ and emphasized the misconception of a dividing line between the arts.[3] Despite recognizing this misconception, the art schools established by the Raj never included classes about traditional Indian architecture or sculpture, but only incorporated decorative art in the curriculum. On the other hand, Mitter establishes that the Raj never discerned the fundamental differences between ‘English art’ and ‘Indian apprenticeship’. He stated that Indian artists had followed a ‘conceptual mode of art since antiquity whereas Western artists had a ‘perceptual’ mode ‘which constantly corrects the initial formula by means of observation’.[4] According to Mitter, Indian art has largely derived and developed its iconography through cultural ‘concepts’ and has maintained a semblance of uniformity, with stylistic shifts, throughout time. While Western art’s characteristic is their constant change of styles based on observations of the world around them. While his arguments can be contested, they also provide an insight into the key differences between Indian and Western art ideologies. The Raj, evidently, gave more importance to the West’s understanding of fine art which could be one of the reasons for Indian art’s diminished standing in the art school curriculum.

The curriculum

During the initial stages of the art schools in India, Mitter points out that the curriculum imposed by the Raj was based on Richard Redgrave’s syllabus devised for the British schools which highlighted the importance of ‘scientific drawing’ as a ‘framework for Indian artists’.[5] Drawings lessons from ‘plaster casts of the Aphrodite of Knidos and Torso Belvedere and other antiques’ were taught to Indian art students for accurate anatomy portrayals. Opposingly, Mr Robert Chisholm found it impossible to be able ‘to draw six arms on a single body, or study flesh tones in the green or pink incarnations of Vishnu’ after these lessons and argued the Western teachings to be dismissive of Indian iconography.[6] Chisholm highlighted an essential error of the Raj; the authoritative decision to impose Western drawing skills on a culturally different student base. As the inceptive ambition of the art schools was to educate the ‘native artisans’, this error led to the downfall of this ambition as the Raj tried to reconstruct the age-old artistic sensibilities of India by introducing a Western attitude.

However, these lessons were still implemented and were accepted by the new student base; the ‘intelligentsia’ of India.[7] Due to George Birdwood’s interest in Indian decorative arts, the administration formulated lessons consisting of pure imitation of Indian ornamentation where the students would ‘learn to appreciate Indian design’ but when searching for ‘instructions in the ‘true’ principles of drawing, they would turn to the West’.[8] So according to this opinion, the Indian art student should have knowledge of Indian decoration however his real artistic sensibility should stem from Western art principles. In relation to John Griffith’s Ajanta Project, Indian art students were asked to copy the wall paintings of the Ajanta caves. However, due to the Western hierarchical view of Indian art, ‘a number of them refused to copy the paintings even on the pain of expulsion, claiming it to be child’s play’.[9] It seems that the curriculum had worked, art students placed ancient Indian art well below the excellence of ancient Western art; a true representation of Raj’s colonial cultural destruction of the nation.

Interestingly, Burns argued against the ‘copying of the old designs’ by modern Indian craftsmen and emphasized his beliefs that ‘artistic regeneration as well as the economic salvation of the craftsmen of India will never be brought about until they follow the example of their confrères of Europe’ and ‘cease to sponge upon their ancestors for artistic ideas’. [10] Burns’ theory is a biased outlook of Indian artistic practices. His dismissal of the traditional workshop system of India is proof of the prejudice against Indian art history. Concurrently, the statues of Aphrodite of Knidos and Torso Belvedere along with ‘English student prize drawings’ in the drawing classes were introduced in the art schools, as copying from antiquity and model English drawings was necessary to build up fine artistic skills. [11] Furthermore, the establishment of a government-funded ‘drawing office’, as suggested by Burns’, where art school graduates would copy traditional Indian designs to embellish metropolitan infrastructure opposes his initial disapproval of Indian craftsmen imitating older designs. [12] One can see the Raj dismissing Indian art practices to instil their own, even when they happen to be of similar natures.

The plight of ‘native’ artistic traditions

Birdwood stated that the preservation of Indian arts could only be achieved when the Indian craftsmen are not burdened by Western practices and are allowed ‘to pursue in their own markets, the artistic industries in which their excellency has been recognized’.[13] Birdwood’s comments stand privy to Raj’s fallacy of introducing Western beliefs in Indian settings. Thus, as the art schools went ahead with their Western art lessons, the number of artisan students began to deplete. Mitter foregrounds the feeble attempt by E.B. Havell to support the education of artisan students. However, Havell’s monetary aid was ‘abused’ and an account of a ‘student remaining in the Madras art school for decades just for the lucre’ led to the withdrawal of the funds.[14] If seen under another lens, instances such as this showcase the growing desperation of native artisans to survive in the rapidly changing art landscape of India.

The arts of India faced extinction not just from the loss of artisan employment but also due to fierce competition of Western industries. Two examples have been taken into consideration to understand the gravity of the problem. ‘Mass-produced goods such as Manchester textiles’ flooded the Indian markets at exponential rates and served as a ‘mortal blow to the aesthetically refined but uncompetitive products of India’.[15] And, the number of weavers in Thana was reduced to ‘five or six’ from 6,000 when faced with the challenging ‘fabrics of European designs’ and ‘excellent reproductions of Indian patterns made in England, France and Germany’ which flooded the local bazaars.[16] The genesis was ‘ill-understood at that time’ but in hindsight, the deterioration of the applied arts of India was the result of rapid ‘modern industrialism’.[17]

Burns blamed the dilution of the style of Indian handicrafts on this insurgence of commercially produced European works in local bazaars.[18] The widely available Western artworks were blindly ‘copied by the native artisans’ resulting in a loss of originality of Indian handicrafts.[19] One should keep in mind that these artisans depended on their skills for their livelihoods but with the rapid industrial changes, many chose to sacrifice the authenticity of their craft rather than face poverty. Havell mentioned that when the Raj required architectural decoration, it sent to ‘Europe or Bombay and obtained men who had been trained in the Bombay School of Art to copy ordinary European ornament’ instead of employing the talented artisans. [20] This resulted in massive artistic unemployment within the native artisan community. So, the introduction of Western philosophies in teachings of art in India resulted in two major changes; firstly, graduates from art schools adopted the Western philosophies of art while rejecting indigenous ones and secondly the artisans who were unable to fit into these art schools faced unemployment due to the outsourcing of workers and overflow of European goods in local bazaars.

Setting up new systems and practices

Contrastingly, The Ajanta Project by John Griffiths and Antiques of Orissa by Rajendralal Mitra, consisting of detailed drawings of the wall paintings of Ajanta caves and architecture and sculptures of Orissa temples respectively, were completely illustrated by the Indian art students and stand as some of the fine outcomes of the otherwise foisted Western curriculum.[21] These projects have articulately documented some of the oldest artworks in India allowing the development of the foundation for art and archival practices.

Similarly, Col. Hendley recounts the contemporary creations of the marble work displayed in the Jeypore Museum where individual craftsmen were ‘allowed to model in clay a capital and a base of a column for one of the arcades of the museum’ ‘which if approved, the artist ‘was permitted to execute in stone and to carve his name upon his work’.[22] The practice of naming artworks is indeed fundamentally Western however it provides a sense of individuality and memorializes not only the artwork but also the artist with it. This instance is a good example of the peaceful coalition of Indian art and Western traditions.

In a wider context, such practices are responsible for setting common standards across the globe. The artistic standards of figure drawing, naming individual artworks, signing art etc. can be credited as the institution of an international standard for art. In hindsight, this norm could be the foundation stone of contemporary art practices like attribution. However, one must keep in mind that these standards were forced upon different regions and as a result, individual artistic cultures were, ultimately, diminished if not eradicated.

The relationship between ‘East’ and ‘West’

Birdwood popularized the belief that ‘fine arts did not exist in India’ and ‘implied that Indian painting and sculpture never rose beyond decorative’ which formed much of the modern perception of Indian art.[23] After analyzing the two texts, a rational conclusion can be drawn: the Raj appreciated the arts of India but never recognized it in their hierarchy of fine arts. The Raj liked the decoration of certain Indian arts and tried to incorporate them into the curriculum of the art schools or as adornment on their infrastructure in attempts to justify their conditioning of Indian visual culture.

However, one must not forget that these perceptions were limited to only the crafts and decorative works of India and completely ignored the sculptures, paintings and architecture of the country. In addition to regarding Indian arts as purely decorative, the Raj’s attempt to reconstruct traditional Indian artistic practices to suit the Western frameworks of art should be seen as insolent destruction of culture.

I have analyzed some of the ways in with the Raj moulded the image of Indian arts according to their colonial beliefs, which left a lasting impact on the perception of Indian arts amongst Indians and across the globe. The instance of art education in India under the Raj presented an important historical element that shaped the relationship between ‘East’ and ‘West’; the exclusion of Eastern arts in the canonical view of art history and hierarchy. This exclusion was deliberate (as seen in Burns’ essay) and necessary to create the essential dynamics required for determining the ‘colonizer/colonized’ relationship. The rule of the Raj, which could be representative of the ‘West’ at large’, maintained a superior grip on the ‘natives’ by administering the Western thought as the pioneer of modernism and dismissing native traditions and knowledge as outdated or in need of Western regeneration.

Glossary

Artisan: In this case, artists/craftspeople who created ‘lesser arts’, such as textiles, folk paintings, architectural façade work etc. This is a colonial, Euro-centric term.

East: Geographically, the countries east of the European border. It is a colonial, Euro-centric term.

Raj: The period of Britain’s rule over the Indian subcontinent

West: Geographically, the countries of Europe and west of its border. It is a colonial, Euro-centric term.

Endnotes

[1] Cecil L. Burns, 'Functions of Schools of Art in India', Journal of the Royal Society of Arts Vol. 57, No. 2952, 1909, pp 629 – 650. Partha Mitter, Chapter 2: Art Education and Raj Patronage (1850 -1900), ‘Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922: Occidental orientations’, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp 29 - 62. [2] Burns, ‘The Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 629 – 30. [3] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 641. [4] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 30. [5] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 34. [6] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 646. [7] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 55. [8] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 51. [9] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 54. [10] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 637. [11] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 48. [12] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 639. [13] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 643. [14] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 58. [15] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 33. [16] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 634. [17] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 33. [18] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 631 - 34. [19] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 632. [20] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 645. [21] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 60 – 61. [22] Burns, ‘Functions of Schools of Art in India’, 650. [23] Mitter, ‘Art Education and Raj Patronage’, 51.

Bibliography

Burns, Cecil L., Functions of Schools of Art in India, Royal Society for the Encouragement of Art, Manufactures and Commerce, ‘Journal of the Royal Society of Arts’ Vol. 57, No. 2952, 1909, pp 629 – 650.

Mitter, Partha, Chapter 2: Art Education and Raj Patronage (1850 -1900), ‘Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922: Occidental orientations’, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp 29 – 62.