The Second Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art exhibition catalogue (APT2)

lesser developed or endowed-Coomaraswamy acknowledges the eventual emergence of a culture that is native, an emergence which would not have been conceivable without the quickening engendered by the originating source. Elsewhere in his account, he crystallises this procedure in terms of a historical process or principle: Broadly speaking we can trace in each area, first of all, an lndianesque period, when the local art constitutes to all intents and purposes a province of Indian art ... then a classical period (800-1200 A.O.), in which a local national formula is evolved and crystallised; and finally a local national phase no longer in direct contact with India and passing into an age of folk art which has generally survived up to the present day. 6 Indian art is the paradigm, the touchstone; the emergence of local forms is conceived and appraised as 'the other'. When such forms shake free from the dominant paradigm, they slide away from high culture to the genus of 'folk art' at which level they persist perpetually. Rarely does Coomaraswamy accede to decisions, options or imperatives exercised by the producers of art in this region, and for use by members of particular communities. Consider for instance, his description of the austere, imposing image of Harihara from Prasat Andet in Cambodia, dated towards the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth centuries A.O. Here the ornament is restricted to the narrow jewelled girdle; but the ears are pierced for reception of earrings, a feature characteristic of Pallava art of the same period in India (Kailasanatha of Karichipuram, c. 700 A.O.). The cylindrical headdress occurs likewise in India, in works of late Andhra, Gupta and Pallava date, at Amara.vat,, Deogarh and Mamallapuram. 7 The image vanishes into the fabric of Indian art history, erased, rendered invisible and inconsequential. Compare Coomaraswamy's account with the reading of the same image by Madeleine Giteau: The face has Cambodian features; straight eyes, high cheek bones and clear-cut lips. Although the nobility of the pose and grave mien are hieratic, the Harihara of Prasat Andet has an expressively human face .. .the handling of a Harihara found •ecently in Tak Keo could well be an imitation of the figure from Prasat Andet.a Coomaraswamy focuses on and itemises ornamental motifs in order to establish the genealogy of the Harihara in terms of Indian art historical models, and then shifts his attention to outlining the panorama of Indian art; the Harihara from Cambodia is only a means for reaffirming the dominance of Indian art. Giteau, on the other hand, reads the image in Cambodian terms, and locates it within the matrix of Cambodian art history. It is not a matter of affirming or denying the influence and force of Indian prototypes; in art history it is of the greatest importance that such prototypes be identified; that choices in selecting, absorbing and transforming prototypes be ascertained and the procedures described and analysed; and that how these prototypes relate to other sources available to Cambodian artists in determining iconographic programs and in settling on forms that satisfy and suit their needs be gauged. All these are of vital significance. In these respects Giteau observes: The dominance of Indian art on Khmer sculpture in the early period receded quickly once the artist's individuality asserted itself.The sculptors still drew their inspiration from Indian myth and legend but their execution was fresh and imaginative. Although the religious ideas of the Brahmans were enriched and regenerated by the philosophical schools of India in the centuries that followed, the art of Cambodia was untouched. During this period the Khmer artists looked, not to the faraway land of India, but towards their neighbours, Java and Champa, and to the royal kingdoms which succeeded one another in the plain of the Menam.9 A radically different view is presented here; Giteau brings into relief dynamic, multidirectional, multi layered sets of relationships which entail intraregional contacts and consequences. Above all, she widens the resou~ces of art and extends the range of choices canvassed by the producers of art in Cambodia. Giteau also underlines purposeful– ness and decisiveness which are important. I have not set out to cast Coomaraswamy in a negative role; on the contrary, the citations that have been culled firmly point to his world view. In his survey of the art of Farther India, he marshalled all available published material at the time of writing; he was also interested in art forms besides architectural and sculptural expressions as he touched on fabric and the wayang (puppet theatre). He disapproved of referring to the art of this region as 'Indian colonial' as it possessed 'vigor and originality'. And then there appears this astounding claim: There is scarcely any monument of Farther India or Indonesian art which, however nearly it may approach an Indian type, could be imagined as existing on Indian soil .. . 10 Yet he was not able to account for these qualities and characteristics in art historical contexts pertinent to the region or to the specific countries within the region (he visited Bali, Java and Cambodia in 1920). He was unable, nay unwilling, to step outside the parameters or the matrix of Indian art history, a history which he was instrumental in shaping; no doubt, he was unwilling to do so from the conviction that it was the one and true tradition. Again Madeleine Giteau projects a world view which is diametrically opposed to that of Coomaraswamy's, and one that points to contexts that are pertinent to the writing of the history of South-East Asian art. During the whole of its history Khmer art has assimilated foreign influences. The artists of Fu-nan and Chen-la, when first confronted with Indian models, transformed them to accord with their own inspiration. Unimportant figures are still Indian in appearance, but the large idols rapidly adopt Khmer physical type, expression and technique; foreign influence is only discernible in the detail. The sculptors were looking for material to embellish, not for inspiration.They well knew the firm foundation of their own artistic tradition, the balance, moderation and beauty of its line. 11 For Giteau, Khmer artistic production is rooted in an intelligence and purposefulness that are shaped by and in turn shape Khmer values and world views. Harihara, from Prasat Andel (Kompong Thom) Late 7th /early 8th century Height: 194cm Collection: National Museum of Phnom-Penh Es sAYs I 15