INTRODUCTION
Art in all its dimensions – tribal, rock, ancient or contemporary – is today a well established discipline all over the world. It is clear that it is important to study in detail this aspect of the cultural heritage of humankind. Increasing interest in this area has also led to a healthy questioning of certain theoretical frameworks that had formed the unquestioned base for most of research in Art. Today, the old sytlistic and other chronologies are being questioned, and there is considerable reliance on studies based on comparative ethnographic data, in the interpretation of Art, especially Rock and ethnographic or what one labels as "tribal". Equally important is the awareness of the limitations of this research, especially because the subjectivity of the researcher’s own – personal and social – viewpoint is a crucial variable. Subjectivity here does not merely refer to the individual, it also points to the cultural biases, say, the Euro-centrism whereby all Art traditions are judged, e.g., Palaeolithic art was supposed to have emerged from this geographic region, along with perceived cultural significances and attributes within certain ‘evolutionary’ schemes.
This focus on Euro-centric – Western – view along with its frameworks, methodologies was then sought to be duplicated in other parts of the world. Of course, many have realised the futility of this kind of this enterprise because it lead to a tremendous neglect of understanding indigenous traditions, their theoretical models and regional temporal distributions. The error is now being rectified, and the interest is now shifting, because of this very questioning of older categories and pigeon-holing of the various categories of Art. This paper stresses the point that Art maybe viewed within certain universal, creative and general artistic traditions of humankind as such. For instance, is it not possible to understand and visualise "tribal" Art within wider possibilities, in the sense of a cosmogonic and universal creative act whereby this common cultural heritage provides a link for the contemporary dilemma which faces us today?
The nature of Art, as a universal phenomenon, is certainly known in the sense of being a cultural manifestation of all societies, past and present. Many different populations lay claim to this heritage in terms of their cultural and political identity. It is also in terms of humankind’s search for its common identity – psychological and biological – that Art transcends regional identities. In the application of sophisticated techniques, taking into account ecological conditions, the cultural correlates and contexts, the study of "tribal" art is also a universal phenomenon.
The present paper hints at some of these aspects of universality, as a creative act. It is important to show the background and the emergence of Art itself within the modern context. For instance, one can show how Art as a concept is limited by specific notions governed by various cultural connotations, e.g., more by monolithic definitions and the like, rather than by other sensibilities and freedom of expression that maybe common to all of human kind. The contemporary image of art as mere aesthetic beauty, in terms of formal qualities – beyond mere utilitarian purposes – is also a limited way of recreating the perception of other cultures in the production of the images of Art.
In short, the modern ways of seeing Art by and large ignores any form of a world vision, i.e., there is little consideration of any cosmic view. This is an ability which all human beings have, irrespective of time and place, that allow one to be in touch with the supernatural or the noumenal dimension. This kind of knowledge was widely prevalent amongst nonindustrial traditional societies who had their own way to know, to express and to manifest it as Art. For instance, one knows that there is continuity both in time and space between Rock Art and such traditions which continue even until today. It is in this sense that ethnology, myths, beliefs, other traditions throw alternate ways of viewing Art. However, in the modern context of the rapid growth of industrialised urbanised settings even in developing countries, the older traditions are fast vanishing and are being lost as has happened already in the Euro-American context.
There is therefore, a general need to reframe the role of archaeology, history and culture in the context of Art in the life of Indian civilization. In the light of recent developments in the scientific world the approach has to be a holistic one, as is prevalent already in indigenous world view. There are historical reasons why this has not been done since far too long have we been following the Euro-centric orientation, if not exactly the colonial goals. In understanding why this has been so requires us to look into certain basic assumptions which were formulated in the European context, beginning with the modern era in the 16-17th century. This is what has greatly influenced research into India’s culture and civilization. This was set against a metaphysics and world view which is radically different to the indigenous Indian ones. It is equally linked to the developments of science and technology during these past 2-3 centuries, conditioning all educational systems in the colonial world, and the intellectuals – the elite. This is why it becomes important to give thought to some of the important unexamined assumptions which have governed the study of Art – archaeology, culture and history – in this subcontinent. It is against this background that we may then be able to formulate holistic approaches to the study of Art. These incidentally happen to be supported by Indian civilization’s fundamental metaphysics.
This paper emphasises the fact that greater insights may be available into the study of Art and culture if such knowledge is related to our own psyche rather than the European one. This idea maybe further elaborated as follows:
The ‘normal’ way, whereby individuals and society perceives the universe – the historical process of recording human events – it appears as a continuous process, within the framework of time-space coordinates. These events are then located and expressed within specific culture-historical context. Whether the framework be one of a linear arrow of time, or that of a cyclical notion – within which linear time is included – the past, present, and the future are always taken as given, as actualities. These are the recorded memories, orally or otherwise, that form the tradition of events and situations. The distinction between personal and social memories are only operational categories since these arise out of each other in a feedback mechanism. At any rate, it all appears real, as if there is actually a time framework within which all of this did take place.
It is obvious that all such memories are really interpretations and re-interpretations of events and situations, from any contemporary viewpoint. But this simple fact is seldom noted in every day living, and even rare is it to notice that these records and memories are what constitute time – it is not a separate dimension. In any case, this is how societies and cultures place events – as history or mythology – origins, ancestry and so on within a conceptual chronological order. Similarly, if one notices, one places one’s personal history within the time-framework of bodily existence, e.g.," when I was a child, adolescent, youth, middle aged, etc. etc. when this and that happened". It all appears psychologically to be true as if it is happening in time.
From these notions of the study of the past, contemporary problems are examined and future projections made, in terms of the dreams, desires, wants or in terms of the supposedly ‘true’ evidence of previous memories, of ‘pain/pleasure’ notion. Not only are academic programmes subsumed under these notions, the researcher himself as social entity, as a product of his collective background, happens to function psychologically within his discipline as a fragmentary being, not holistically. Disciplines as Art, history, anthropology, archaeology and others dealing with society and culture and governed by this fragmentary approach, especially unconscious assumptions that govern one’s life. It is in this context that tradition and culture is studied by intellectuals who today reflect the elite-urban sophisticated groups within the context of certain self-images that arise out of long standing personal and professional histories. At any rate, the basis of all action – activity – is this movement of the location of events in a past-present-future framework, at both the socio-psychological level. The movement of time is generally considered external, outside the body-brain mechanism; and, otherwise internally as a narrative dialogue within the mind-brain setup. Of course, the external-internal movement is not only closely linked but is in fact one movement. It is split because of the social system, within the space-time symbolic-semiotic languaging terms that makes up the framework of reference (Malik : 1989). Within an awareness of the holistic framework, which is an issue of introspection, to which we shall return later since it is important to view Indian Civilization as a whole and not to exclude other variables and dimensions which are available in India.
What is this ‘normal’ way of viewing the past, since it is not the ‘natural’ or obvious one; it is related to a specific background to which we turn the below.
I.HISTORI BACKGROUND OF THE MODERN ERA
In the context of a discussion on a knowledge of the past, it is important to note the specific historical-philosophical climate of Europe during the 16th-17th centuries, within which the Scientific Revolution took place. It is also worth while to recall some basic presuppositions, essentially Western, which dominate our times, summarised as follows:
a. The Universe
1. A mechanical machine, with no intention or purpose; not an organism having consciousness. In being so, it is indifferent to man – hence it needs to be conquered.
2. It is real to the extent it can be externalised, quantified, measured in terms of mass, dimensions of size, colour, taste, etc., characteristics that are ultimately not real.
3. The internal nature of man is subjective and different to the external which alone can be objective and true.
4. Matter precedes intelligence; the latter must be explained in terms of the former which may be dead though subject to purposeless forces.
5. Time is linear, sequential; and space essentially uniform. Energy is basically the same, not gross or subtle – though it may be more or less in quantity. Time, space and energy are only externally real, and are independent at the level of perceiving consciousness.
6. Importance is given to the causal notion, in terms of the evolution of complexity and intelligence.
b. Man
1. Man is essentially a rational cognizer, a body with a mind localised in it or an "engine with a will" (Descartes and Behaviourism); he is an atomic being, an individual without any transpersonal spirit.
2. There is no essential hierarchy of being or consciousness among men or within men; even if so, it is irrelevant to knowledge and the organisation of society, governments etc.
3. Man as he is, is an imperfect being, yet the measure of all things.
c. Knowledge-Truth
1. Knowledge is an end in itself, except for the betterment of the estate of man.
2. There is one truth, if it was Christianity once, it is Science now.
3. Subject and Object can be completely separated, i.e., without a need for earlier studying oneself.
4. Reason is the only faculty by which knowledge may be obtained, even experiments are extensions of this faculty. But sensations and feelings are not true perceptions.
5. True knowledge is obtained by proceeding from the parts to the whole.
6. The importance of detaching oneself from the subject of study, rather than by participation and experiencing the object.
7. Reality is a mental construct; knowledge is abstract and general, not a vision or experience of particulars.
8. True knowledge is quantitative, not qualitative – what can be quantified is independent of place and function.
9. True knowledge leads to predictions of what is known, since it is based on external, repeatable perceptions; only that which is externalised is available to true knowledge.
10. The truth and falsity of propositions is self-evident, irrespective of the person who says it.
11. As knowledge has nothing to do with being-ness or consciousness, it is not esoteric, i.e., it requires no moral preparation to be discovered or to be understood.
12. In principle, in the making of actual observations (not in the interpretation of data), the observer can always be replaced by scientific instruments.
13. The dichotomy of faith-knowledge, is perhaps more a consequence of the Scientific Revolution rather than a presupposition that truth and knowledge reside in dimensions different from those in which religious considerations about God, etc. reside.
Thus, modern science and technology – Scientific Revolution – took place within a specific historical – philosophical climate of Western Europe during the 16th-17th centuries. These notions continue to dominate contemporary times in general. For example, the old idea of classical science continues, e.g., that of separateness: observer from the observed, man from nature, mind from matter, science from religion, etc. In short, it leads to the specialisation of different scientific disciplines that leads to competition among scientists. It was thought that the study of evolution of man, his history and archaeology, could be pursued objectively as if contemporary man was outside this picture. These reductionist explanations continue to be followed in many disciplines.
In short, the emphasis is on the localization of causes, since the sole epistemological assumption is one of empirical evidence, i.e. data arising from our physical senses. By the middle of this century these two metaphysical assumptions, of separateness and empiricism, became intrinsic to science. It is against this background that the tremendous developments, and disasters, of the 20th century need to be seen. It was sometime after World War II, that there was a great deal of assurance of humankind for the practical dimensions of the notion of ‘progress’ on a global scale, equated with high technology.
This notion of linear growth is directly related to the way one views knowledge and continues to study it, inevitably to support unexamined world views. To reterate, the study of Art whether of the past or that of "tribal" cultures, has been placed lower in the evolutionary ladder. And this is what has had a direct impact on contemporary situations. Without going into details, it is clear that Western thought has consistently modeled those worldviews which have generated ontological gaps that runs across the whole domain of experience. For example, human and other organisms, in spite of the fact that they share the same cosmic niche, are considered to be literally worlds apart.
This dualism is one of the fundamental, often tacit tenets of Western metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Dualist conceptions of human beings themselves are rooted in this deep-seated anthropocentrism (Malik: 1968, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1989a, b; 1992, 1993a,b: 1995). Archaeological and culture-historical studies continue to function within this outdated paradigm, it must be stressed. This dominant worldview has even assimilated evolutionary theory, by historicising the ontological gap. All-religious or secular-teleological perspectives construe the variety of life forms as the result of a process leading to the advent of humankind.
Thus, Homo sapiens is not seen as a stage in an indefinite flux of change, but as an end, the glorious result of a history of trial and error. Is there any difference between this view and that of creationism? The dichotomy between human and nonhumans was frequently extended to other races, often treated as slaves and even women were not exactly placed in the same category as evolved humans – this was especially the case with many 19th century Darwinians. Social differences within Europe itself were classified in this line of thought, the techno-economic models supported by archaeological knowledge which we continue to take for granted (Bouissac: 1991). Again, what is considered universal today usually implies a dominant Western world view – whatever way one may define it – and all other categories have to be subsumed within it in the name of universalism. In this one may include the idea of linear time, progress towards a certain state. But this makes these approaches less flexible, as against those cultures which see evolutionary developments in terms of cyclical time wherein catastrophes are part of nature and reality and, further, are encompassed within a larger context.
[ Newsletter | List of Newsletter ]