Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
RATIONALIZING THE MYSTICAL RELATIONSHIP OF ART WITH ARTIST: ART DISCOURSES IN ENGLAND AND FORMATIVE YEARS OF MAYO SCHOOL OF ARTS, LAHORE (1875-1895) HUSSAIN AHMAD KHAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, SINGAPORE ABSTRACT GWF Hegel (1770-1831) was not alone who termed Indian civilization as a mystical one. There were several others like Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), James Fergusson (1808-1886) and James Mill (1773-1836) who held the same opinion about the Indian civilization. Such sensibility came to the forefront with the Great Exhibition, held in 1851. Literature on the Great Exhibition suggests multiple views on Indian art; a few art critics termed it as barbaric, some romanticized it as the European past, and the rest believed that the Europeans can learn artistic skills from the Indians. The exhibition also generated a design discourse which formalized a “mystical relationship” of Indian craftsman with his product. This article studies how did the British rationalize the presumably mystical or non-rational relationship of craftsman with his craft through education in the later half of the 19th century colonial Punjab? It also highlights the cognitive failures of the British art administrators to understand the context and dynamics of the province. These cognitive failures were due to the problems faced by the British in the colonies, and due to some preconceived notions developed over a period of time in the metropolitan. Different dynamics, new challenges and crisis not only altered the preconceived notions of the British art administrators but also made them aware of that rationalization might not work in the colony. In other words, the British art administrators realized that the modernity 89
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
of metropolitan could not work in the colony and a different rationality was required to work in the subcontinent. KEY WORDS: Colonial Art, Subcontinent, JL Kipling, Punjab, Rationality, Craftsmen, Mayo School of Arts, Mystical. Many noted historians and art critics, such as Partha Mitter 1 and Tapati Thakurta 2 argue that Europeans looked upon the oriental art with a clear-cut distinction or the binary(ies) of barbarian and civilized. Oriental civilization was used by deploying Hegelian terms like ‘conscious’ symbolism of the West and ‘unconscious’ symbolism of the East. Regarding art schools in India, Partha Mitter agrees that the intention of art schools in India was different in various official circles but these schools played an important part in disseminating western discourses in the public sphere. 3 Tapati Thakurta identifies the problems of “in-built notion of great art” and the artistic excellence, as the “sacrosanct standards of histories of art and culture”. Arguing ideological motives behind the establishment of art instruction in India, she writes, (in the art instruction) “Britain’s growing appreciation of Indian-art ware could be contained within the dominance of western aesthetic norms and the westernized art establishment of the Empire”. 4 Her analysis also underlines the articulation of colonial discourses through art instruction inspired by a monolithic western art establishment. Similarly, Arindam Dutta argues that it was the colonial strategy to incorporate native agency in the art domain. He traces this strategy within the larger context of “dual rationale” or “two-tiered policy where customary jurisprudence devolved to native authorities and the colonial administration retained control over political, criminal, and economic policy”. 5 Dutta understands the development of the Mayo School of Arts, Lahore and the Lahore Museum within this context. Taking a different point of view from these art historians, this article argues that the cognitive failure of the British art administrators to grasp ‘the forces at work’ made it impossible for the modernity to work in the colony exactly like in the metropolitan. This approach precisely points out the limitations of the British empire whose role in the art domain is over-exaggerated by developing the argument within the parameters set forth by Edward Said’s Orientalism. By highlighting the limitations of British empire, this article indirectly creates a niche for the subaltern classes which were dominant in the public sphere of the 19th century colonial Punjab and are over looked or treated as ‘subjects’ (rather than an instrument of change) in the post-colonial histories. The article also suggests that in the nineteenth century art 90
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
domain, neither the British art administrators nor their trained artisans could penetrate in the public sphere. In fact, the British had to re-define their role to establish the negotiating grounds with the locals. British agenda of introducing theoretical instruction in art education primarily remained a futile attempt to rationalize the works of art in the nineteenth century colonial Punjab. This article is divided into three parts: first part discusses the nineteenth century debates concerning art in the British empire which later on also influenced the understanding of Indian art; second part highlights the deliberations within the colonial state regarding art instruction in India. This portion also gives a brief over view of colonial strategy to rationalize the local art by adopting theoretical teaching. The third part of this article explains the problems faced by the Mayo School of Arts which, to a great extend, altered the modernity or rationality of the colonial state and highlights the cognitive failure of the colonial art administrators to understand the situational circumstances. (I) In the middle of the nineteenth century, contemporary literature 6 and the Great Exhibition presented India as a mystical civilization. George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood (1832-1917), an Anglo-Indian officer, naturalist and an art critic, termed India a “living force” of “antiquity survived into modernity” which was “predestined to prove a commanding exemplar in the revival of all the sumptuary arts of life in Aryan Europe”. 7 He further substantiates his point of view in his book, The Industrial Art of India: “Indian Art, in every decorative detail, Aryans or Turanian, bears witness to the universal conviction that the character of man’s being and destiny is supernatural; and that human duty, and all that gives to daily intercourse the charm of art and grace of culture, possess their reality and true meaning only in the purposes of a life beyond life”. 8 Similarly, Moncure Daniel Conway (18321907), an American writer, in his book Travels in South Kensington published in 1882, mentioned the awe-aspiring beauty of the goods of Indian courts as “its Muslim temple photographs, Hindu jewellery, and Buddhist gates provided a spiritual biography of the subcontinent while offering transcendent lessons that surpassed the particularity of place”. 9 To Owen Jones (1809 –1874), an architect and designer of Welsh descent and famous for his studies of Alhamra Palace and drawing publications, “Indian design arose from instinct. It evinced the very faith that the people brought to their religion, habits, and modes of thought”. 10 Such effusion elevates the position of the Indian art to the status of mystical heights.
91
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
Not all the commentators termed Indian art as mystical and romantic, there were many others who saw Indian art as un-aesthetic and worthless. From an English architect, Digby Wyatt’s 11 label of “rude instruments” for the Indian tools 12 to the accusation of Indian art as a wasteful labour, 13 many discussions aimed at denigration of oriental art and resentment towards its primitive and barbaric nature. 14 For instance, the Westminster Review sees “the ornate daggers, arrows, and guns in the Indian collection” as “the work of an idle people who indulged in cruel and morbid fancies”. 15 John Cassell (1871-65), a British tea and coffee merchant and publisher of magazines for the middle class, showed his disdain for the Indian craftsmen by portraying them as “a lean, starved-out regiment of squalid beggars, half naked, or with scanty folds of coarsest cotton flung around their wasted limbs”. 16 Similarly, John Tallis, (1815/16 –1876), an English cartographic publisher who published maps and atlases, called the Indian efforts as “misplaced” and a “waste of human labour”. 17 By viewing Indian art as mystical, romantic and decadent, the art critics termed it irrational because it lacked conceptualization. There was no relation between the art and the artist, the craft and the craftperson. It was one of the major objectives of establishing art schools in India to introduce a rational relationship between the art and the artist or craft person and craft. Such process of rationalizing the relationship of labour and product had its context in the larger developments taking place in the nineteenth century England and the role of radical intellectuals involved in the debates on aesthetics, mechanization and hand-made products. In the development of visual culture and art education in the nineteenth century England, Henry Cole’s circle played an important part. Henry Cole (1808-1882), a son of a Dragoon officer, was introduced to a circle of radical intellectuals by Thomas Love Peacock when Cole was working under Francis Palgrave at the Record Commission in the 1820s. The circle of radical intellectuals comprised John Stuart Mill (1806 –1873), an influential liberal thinker, political economist, civil servant and parliamentarian, Horace Grant, who wrote drawing manuals for educational purposes, Edward Chadwick, Charles Buller, and others. 18 Many of them were impressed by Jermy Benthem’s utilitarian Philosophy, especially Stuart Mill who acted as Cole’s mentor during the initial career of his life. 19 Their discussion largely revolved around the reforms concerning adult suffrage and secret ballot in the 1820s and 30s. To some extent, the events and political atmosphere of the 1830s, like the Reform Bill of 1832 which considerably increased the role of English middle class within the power structure, developed the tastes of the Englishmen. Arts and education became the increasing concern of policy makers and 92
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
intelligentsia. Since 1832, British museum was also under construction and in 1836, the new building of British parliament was completed. Prospects of trade in the global market further stimulated the official interests in the arts of the East. The Parliamentary Committee was established in 1835 to explore the possibilities of extending art knowledge and principles of design to the manufacturing population of the country. 20 Henry Cole played an important role in the nineteenth century art discourses developed through his publications, and also by organizing the Great Exhibition. His publications focussed on thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’ political history of England, architectural designs and art of Westminster Abbey. To allure the tourists, he had also published Railway Charts describing the main architectural buildings, monuments, and important places around the railway track. These writings bring to the fore his views about aesthetics. He actively engaged himself in the debates regarding the role of state to direct the course of art instruction, protection of crafts against the mechanical mass production, and the significance of utilitarian arts against the decorative beauty. Such considerations led to the formulation of binaries of art as ‘Fine’ and ‘Applied’. 21 For the first time Cole used the term ‘Art Manufacture’ in 1845, which stood for “Fine art applied to mechanical production” which was meant to improve the industrial products by influencing public tastes. 22 By that time the meaning of ‘Fine Art’ was specifically attached with the Greco-Roman sculpture and the art of high Renaissance. It was on Cole’s persuasion that Prince Albert, German husband of Queen Victoria, decided to organize Great Exhibition by displaying the art and industry of all nations. Now, Cole engaged himself with manufacturers, railway companies, committees at local levels, and with various governments which helped him to disseminate his ideas on art and industry. Whether it was a new beginning or a continuation of previous tradition, 23 the Great Exhibition did address “the artisanal skills” that had always been a focal point in the “preceding efforts at design reform”. 24 The offshoot literature 25 of the Great Exhibition and the lectures delivered by architects, Digby Wyatt and Owen Jones, 26 during the 1850s incorporated various art theories into the codified body of systematized knowledge which also extended its critique on Indian arts and formed the integral part of British understanding of the complexities of design art. 27 The British art critics concluded that “ancient art should be studied, but not indiscriminately imitated; nature was to be a source of inspiration; and ornament must suit the material and function of the object for which it is intended”. 28 For art critics, problems in the British designs were due to the ignorance and lack of training of the British artisans 29 in comparison to the Indian artisans 93
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
who according to them were better equipped than the former. In this sense, the Exhibition glorified labour and labourer, and the critics called it a “festival of working man”. 30 The Great Exhibition called for reforms in art instruction, as the art critics were not satisfied with the British displays. For this purpose, a Department of Practical Art (renamed as Department of Science and Art in 1855) was established in Marlborough House, and Henry Cole was its General Superintendent, Richard Redgrave (18041888), painter, etcher and art administrator, was appointed as Art Superintendent, while Owen Jones became Redgrave’s assistant. Cole, Redgrave and William Dyce (1806-1864) a renowned Scottish arteducationist, prepared a report which recommended the control of the department over sixteen art schools (by 1850). It was suggested that the department would guide school administration in developing curriculum and training of the students in design education. Cole and Redgrave were also members of a committee appointed by the Government to select the objects for instruction in the schools of design. Cole termed the Indian display at the Great Exhibition as the “highest instructional value to students in design”, 31 and therefore, the committee purchased nearly 200 articles for instruction in England which included ornaments and utensils made of horn, shell, ivory and sandal wood, textile products, inlaid metals, and locally made arms. The impact of these developments can be seen by a sudden rise in art schools throughout the country. By 1855, over one thousand teachers were trained in drawing at these art schools. In 1857, the Department’s headquarter was established at South Kensington and its control was transferred from the Board of Trustees to the Council of Education. In the same year, South Kensington Museum was established largely by the efforts of Cole who was also made its first director. Along with it, the Royal School of Art was set up in 1859. This school was to guide other art schools in England and to “supply art teachers to all places which seek to establish art schools”. 32 It was from here that the art instructors were sent to the Punjab and elsewhere in India to promote the discourse of aesthetics and design developed at South Kensington. The South Kensington Museum became a beacon house of enlightenment with its cultural legacy accessible to all. The Department of Science and Art arranged lectures for the craftsmen by arranging ‘penny seats’ in its lecture theatre. For the first time the working men began to see their entrance in the existing public sphere. Cole realized the relevance of culture in the arena of politics “as the Art Journal noted Cole recorded the numbers of visitors to South Kensington as assiduously as a politician might count votes at an election”. 33 Henry Cole’s South Kensington Art School catered to the needs of the artisan and art pupils. But still, “for designs featuring the 94
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
human figure, manufacturers had to look to the continent even as late as the 1880s”. 34 By 1860s the South Kensington became more inflexible and adopted a bureaucratic apparatus when Henry Cole became increasingly stringent confining himself to the administrative matters only, thus, “the guidance of public taste was left …to manufacturers who sought their inspiration increasingly in Museum display”. 35 There were also some dissenting voices critiquing Cole’s theoretical and administrative measures like John Ruskin (1819 –1900), a British artist, art critic and social thinker, and William Morris (1834 – 1896), an English architect, furniture and textile designer, writer, and founding father of Art and Craft Movement. Ruskin criticized Cole who had “corrupted the system of art teaching all over England into a state of abortion and falsehood from which it will take twenty years to recover”. 36 During the same period, art and craft movement also projected the need of awareness among the craftpersons about their craft. Following Ruskin, William Morris, Walter Crane and Lawrence Alma Tadema were the leading figures in this movement which brought up the issues of craft culture. The movement was especially known for its patronage of the “lesser arts” and the socialist views “which sought to reform the arts and redesign the world for all, not just those who were able to purchase its works”. 37 The art and craft movement followers discussed the individuality in art “whether in painting, architecture or applied design”. 38 They resented the direct imitation of medieval paintings. Inspired by Ruskin’s socialist views, Morris thought “the greed of capitalism” and “commercial tyranny oppressed the lives” 39 and deteriorate art. He emphasized that the artists/architects should have command over the manual skills or applied arts. They should possess the knowledge about the materials used in the design formation. It would give more satisfaction to the artists which they could not attain by merely copying the natural landscapes. 40 The arts and crafts movement offered a well-argued critique on industrialization, alienation, and mechanization which was missing in the doctrine of Cole and his circle. However, Cole and his circle addressed the larger audience which included all “artisans throughout the nation”. 41 The arts and crafts movement limited itself to the middle class artists. Its idea of unity of art was not a novel contribution as it was the legacy of Pre-Raphaelite theorists. 42 A few British art critics most prominent among them was George Birdwood found this division of art and craft irrelevant to the Indian context because products in India were made by hand which could be called art. 43 John Lockwood Kipling (1837-1911), father of Rudyard Kipling and first principal of Mayo School of Arts, Lahore, also adopted the same argument and
95
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
insisted on preserving the lesser art and making artisans aware of their work. The clamouring of radical reforms in England also largely influenced many intellectuals to address the issues of education, art, aesthetics and governance in the subcontinent. For instance, James Mill’s History of British India (1817) measured India on the “scale of civilization” and questioned the “structure and purpose of imperial rule in India”. 44 Mill advocated the radical reforms in the subcontinent many of which were, later on, incorporated by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, a British Poet, historian and Whig politician, in his Minute on Education (1834). Some of these reforms were the introduction of western education, free press, and application of utilitarian principles in law and administration. Most of these reforms were implemented during Bentinck’s Governor-Generalship of India. Macaulay’s Minute somewhat settled down the long controversy between ‘Anglicists’ vs ‘Orientalists’. “There are no books”, argued Macaulay, “on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own; whether 45 , when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which by universal confession whenever they differ from that of Europe differ for the worse…”. 46 Macaulay’s Minute on Indian education may be termed as a most significant development in the course of colonial Indian history primarily for two reasons: first, it laid down the future directions for the education system in India; secondly, it formulated or set new standards of elitism in India which were to dominate in the coming centuries. People who came from England were influenced by Utilitarianism and Evangelism. Their prime objective was to rebuild the society which was, in Macaulay’s words, “sunk (to) the lowest depths of slavery and superstition”. Krishna Kumar, an Indian scholar on colonial education, conceptualizes it as adult-child relationship. According to him, “the colonizer took the role of the adult, and the native became the child” and this very relationship defined the educational and academic landscape of the colonial India. 47 Apart from reformist or imperialist tendencies, the British products flooded markets in the subcontinent which taxed the local industry and threatened the existence of craftsmanship in India. It resulted in desperate attempts by British Indian officials to re-capture the market for Indian products. Charles Edward Trevelyan (18071886), a British Civil Servant and Governor of Madras, in 1853 suggested to the Select Committee, House of Lords, to establish art schools in India: “….to give the natives of India all the advantage in the cultivation of the arts which it is in our power to give, for in order to favour our own manufactures 96
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
imported into India and partly by levying a heavy duty upon Indian manufactures imported into England, in addition to the natural manufacturing superiority of England, we have by these means swept away great branches of manufacture and have caused great distress in India. Consequently, I consider that we owe a great debt to India in this respect and it is specially our duty to give our Indian fellow subjects every possible aid in cultivating those branches of art that still remain to them”. 48 Inspired by economic considerations and Henry Cole’s ventures, Trevelyan’s proposal was meant to Europeanize the art of locals and to “modify existing designs in the light of British tastes” 49 (to make them suitable for export) through education which was to be devised on the lines of Macaulay’s Minute. Trevelyan’s policy was almost identical to that of Macaulay. In 1853, he said: “The only means at our disposal for preventing revolution is to set the natives on a process of European improvement. They will then cease to desire and aim at independence on the old Indian footing. The national activity will be fully and harmlessly employed in acquiring and diffusing European knowledge and naturalizing European constitutions…in following this course we should be trying no experiment. The Romans at once civilized the nations of Europe and attached them to their rule by Romanizing them; or, in other words, by educating them in the Roman literature and arts and teaching them to emulate their conquerors instead of opposing them. The Indians will, I hope, soon stand in the same position towards us in which we once stood towards the Roman”. 50 Art schools at Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Lahore were set up on these conflicting principles, 51 which on one hand meant to revive the local arts by using European/Indian principles and, on the other hand, to incorporate Indian artisans within the metropolitan economy by sensitizing them about the possibilities of markets in Europe. All these conflicting interests reflected in the debates of British art administrators. In 1875, the Mayo School of Industrial Art was established in Lahore and J L Kipling, who spent much of his time at South Kensington, was appointed its first principal. Highlighting the 97
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
objectives of the school, Kipling termed (it) “the most important of local educational institutions.... the object of the Lahore School (later Mayo School) is to revive crafts now half forgotten, and to discourage as much as possible the crude attempts at reproduction of the worst features of Birmingham and Manchester work now (so) much common among natives”. 52 Here Kipling explicitly articulates the intention of colonial state to make artisan aware of the importance of their work. This could only be done by teaching locals the theoretical basis of their own art to enable them to understand the rationality of their own product. How did the British art administrators plan this relationship of rationality with the craft-person and craft, makes the next part of this article. (II) The main actors behind devising a policy for art instruction in the colonial Punjab were Baden Powell (1841-1901), British Civil Servant, writer and art critic, Richard Temple (1826-1902), art critic and English Civil Servant, H H Locke (d.1885), first Principal of Calcutta School of Arts, J L Kipling, and Dr De Fabeck, Principal, Jeypore School of Arts. They deliberated on the location of art schools, theoretical instruction and training of teachers. Most of the British officials in India like J L Kipling, HH Lock and De Fabeck favoured the establishment of art schools in provincial capitals and big cities. Kipling suggested Dehli, Agra, Allahabad while De Fabeck favoured Bengal Presidency, Allahabad and Ajmer. 53 This strategy of establishing schools “under the eyes of government” 54 was: first to attract local princes, chiefs and elites in order “to mould (their) character and tastes, and to improve the intelligence”; 55 second, to establish the schools which were wellequipped in order to achieve the objectives. 56 However, Temple pointed out that people from villages would not be interested in taking admission in these schools. Conscious of this apprehension, the British government decided to establish these schools in the administrative centres away from craft-centres. Possible intention was to attract “native aristocracy” and to make them as a role model for the rest of locals. The British art administrators like Richard Temple and Baden Powell believed that the Indian art was “wholly empirical” and lacked theoretical basis. Such theoretical insensibility emptied the Indian art from systematization and rationalization. Indians have instinctive sympathy with nature, but they do not posses reasoning to explain their art. Lack of theoretical insight made Indian art stagnant, substandard and reduced Indian arts and craftspersons to merely copyist. Indians 98
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
even imitate European art without acquiring its sensibility. This theoretical problem could be resolved in three ways; first, by introducing sciences 57 ; second, by introducing drawing 58 and third, by giving some examples of good work in museums 59 . Baden Powel suggested that a separate chair of Applied Art should be established under the director of the school of arts. Students should be taught physical sciences, principles of machinery, and elementary chemistry. 60 The British laid special emphasis on drawing 61 because it was a skill which reflected the intelligence of observation through a co-ordination of eye, mind and hand. By acquiring this skill, one would be able to enhance his faculties of perception and precision, discrimination and classification. The nineteenth century drawing manuals suggest five major objectives: “Firstly, that drawing is important as a source of useful knowledge and moral edification, especially for the lower classes of the society; secondly, that the exercise of drawing is particularly suited to training eye and hand, thereby perfecting their manual operation; thirdly, that drawing and writing are fundamentally related as forms of visual and manual expression, making it advantageous to learn them in tandem; fourthly, that drawing is a universal language, comprehensible to people of all races and nationalities; and lastly, that drawing provides a means of intellectual and moral refinement, exercising an elevating influence capable of raising the mind above sensual or material pursuits”. 62 Temple believed that “theoretical instruction which we as Europeans are best qualified to supply”. 63 Others like Locke, Kipling, Powell held the same view. Temple was of the opinion that to ensure the proper functioning of the school “I would suggest that picked men be sent out through the Secretary of State to be Principals and Professors and Assistant Masters in our art schools, just as picked men are secured and sent out to us for our Telegraph Department, our Forest Department, our Educational Department, and for other services wherein it is now admitted that a special and technical education is indispensable. If this were done for our art schools, I have little doubt but that the improvement in their organization and system would be most immediately discernible in its results, and would increase as time went on”. 64 However, Kipling was in favour of training some locals to assist in teaching and other projects like making a new building of museum. He found youths of the mistree, and rungsas class most suitable for this job in designing the museum which would become “a comprehensive object book of reference”. 65 Theoretically, the purpose of art instruction in India was to disseminate ‘general art culture’, so that at least as the future deputy magistrate or government clerk must know about Chaucer, Edwardian glories in the stone building, Elizabethian literature, etc. 66 It was also 99
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
intended to revive old art and craft and to address elite class to formulate the local aesthetics. JL Kipling in one of his reports argued that “an art school cannot well be conducted like a factory or jail”. 67 He was right. The plans made for the instruction could not have been materialized in the educational centre. The reason was obvious. These plans were insensitive to the forces at work. It makes the last part of this article. (III) From the very beginning, Kipling realized the problems and these problems exceeded to his anticipation, which altered the colonial agenda of changing local aesthetics. 68 The main problems were different classes of students, pre-colonial traditions of craftmanship, lack of funds, lack of trained staff, and problem of language. These problems and crisis changed, in one way or the other, the colonial agenda of making artisans aware of what is beautiful and what is not. The art schools were established in the capitals and big cities to attract local elites. However, in Mayo School of Arts, the local elite did not take interest. The students from lower strata took admission. Many even did not complete their period and left the school due to different reasons. Those students, who could not get admission in institutions like Aitcheson College, Government College Lahore, Punjab University, Lahore, took admission in this school and they had no passion for art. Apart from drop-out, many students did not bother to attend the schools. But it was the school’s policy that they did not refuse any admission which was free of cost. 69 Kipling complains that “...low level of intelligence is our worst drawback. It is comparatively easy to get a geometrical problem understood or a perspective diagram drawn, but most difficult is to secure an intelligent appreciation of real delicacy and truth in free hand drawing or of an idea outside an ordinary practice. There may be less to observe in an Indian town than in the European one, but the neglect of the faculty of observation by Punjab youths has other causes than the blankness of their surroundings. I am afraid it may justly be said that the care and pains have only half the effect that might be produced on better material”. 70 Many of the students entered in the school were more interested in getting government jobs rather than learning art. However, on regularly attending the class, they quickly realize that it was not the place for them, so they leave the school as soon as possible. 71 Students who were not from any artisan family preferred drawing and refused to do any manual work like woodwork, etc. 72 The Director Public Instructions and Kipling repeatedly mentioned in their reports that the school would not be able to achieve its objectives 100
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
because of the students who neither had any enthusiasm of art nor had necessary understanding of the aims of school. 73 Kipling’s reports mentioned that students from artisan families did take admission in the school. To name a few, these students were Bhai Ram Singh, Miran Bakhsh. It seems that the pre-colonial structure of Gharana art/craft remained intact even after the establishment of this modern institution. It might look modern, but in a sense it carried tradition by imparting training to the artisans and craft persons. Many of these artisans and craft persons were later hired in the school as assistant teachers, and teachers. Bhai Ram Singh’s example may be quoted here. Even after acquiring some certificates, these people continued with their family profession. For instance, the report of 187576 mentions few promising students of the school. They were Bhai Ram Singh who was a carpenter, Muhammad Din, who was engraver, and Sher Muhammad who was a ‘luhar’ by profession. 74 Kipling mentions that only the sons of artisans are performing well in the school and they possess natural talent in doing so. 75 With the passage of time, the school administration appreciated that the industrial side was “fully developed” because of the interest of artisan families, 76 and this interest could be promoted by offering more scholarships. Kipling also realized that the families would be more useful institution in teaching than school in India because “an honest blacksmith’s shop would be a more useful institution than a school in India that sets out to teach a theory and principles of art pur et simple”. 77 Kipling’s effort to teach drawing to the artisans was not very successful, because they thought it more slavish rather than means of learning. 78 They believed it as a “mechanical and thoughtless work”. 79 It is not to suggest that no artisan learnt drawing and decorative art, for instance, Sher Muhammad “one of the very few natives with a strongly marked vocation for pictorial art, and a love of work for its own sake” learnt drawing and was invited by Major Biddulph who was posted in Gilgit to prepare “illustrations of the people and domestic life of that region”. 80 Few instances also suggest that the school administration attached as much importance to the works of artisans who were not even trained in the newly established art schools. For example, in 1879-80, woodcarvers from Amritsar were involved to make wood carvan show for the Melbourn Exhibition because of the shortage of time. Artisans in the school were not interested in the theoretical works, and Kipling was happy to see them excelling in practical art. 81 Another important problem which the Mayo School of Arts faced was that of funds. Because of insufficient funds, neither the trained staff from Europe could be hired, nor the students could be offered luxurious scholarships. Similarly, building could not be 101
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
extended. Problems emanating from the paucity of funds exposed students to the market. They had to accept outside assignments in order to meet their own as well as school’s expenses. Sometimes, even classes could not be held regularly because of these assignments. These assignments essentially represented non-Europeanized version of art/craft. Most of them were traditional and indigenously designed. Many writings especially that of Thomas Metcalf, suggest, the British used Indo-Saracenic architecture as a mean of glorifying the empire. The students of the Mayo School of Arts were trained to design such buildings. In Colonial Punjab, a number of buildings were constructed in this style like Lahore Museum, Mayo School of Arts, Atchison College and Lahore Railway Station. However, a close reading of many official reports reveal that these buildings were not a mean of celebrating empire, but a way of using space to serve the purpose. These buildings were constructed under limited budget and decoration was avoided to minimize the expenses. 82 Kipling admitted in his reports that the school was misguided because the draughtsmen were not trained in the local architecture. Official buildings in indo-saracenic style may badly affect the public taste as local elite would copy such a style for their own buildings. However, it was also a question of crucial importance for them whether talented youth could be attracted and trained in local architecture? 83 As Thomas Metcalf points out that in British buildings in India, Indian/Saracanic elements of design like arches, dome, brackets, etc. could be variously used in any spatial location, 84 Kipling too had had the same understanding of Indian architecture. It is precisely because of this reason that not all the buildings of British empire were built in indo-saracenic style. High British officials in Punjab preferred pre-colonial buildings for residential purposes. For instance, Governor House in Lahore, offices in civil secretariat were constructed in traditional pattern. Students of Mayo school of Arts were trained to design buildings within a limited budget. They were not trained to build the monuments of empire, in fact, their training was meant to realize under-funded projects. Since the school was not exactly in tune with the European aesthetics, the European community therefore did not take interest in the school’s work. Only European students of Eastern art appreciated the works of staff and students. 85 From 1884-85 onwards, principal and then vice principal began to visit the local market and industry to acquaint themselves with the contemporary trends. Besides, the school staff was engaged by the private artisans for advice and guidance. 86 However, many students who completed their courses from the school were later on involved in the Public Works Department (PWD) and did not have any direct contact with the people, therefore, could not impinge upon the public taste directly. 87 The PWD was the “biggest 102
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
building monopoly” in the nineteenth century, however, it was essentially Indian in character as it hired artisans in constructing official buildings. 88 Due to the inadequate funds and lack of interest, the school could not hire European teachers in a sufficient number. Hence, the administration had to hire locals in the school; to run workshop, socalled ‘illiterate’ artists and craft persons were employed. This tradition persists to date. It was apprehended by the Director Public Instruction that the school would not be able to perform well, if natives were not trained to oversee the affairs of school in Kipling’s absence. 89 In 188485, the number of teaching staff in the school was five in which three were locals (Ram Singh, Sher Muhammad and Lala Dhanpat Rai) while two were foreigners (J L Kipling and Gervaise P Pinto). 90 Language was emphasized in the theoretical art training. Kipling complained, the students who were talented artists did not posses good language skills and were at disadvantage as compared to those who had good command over language but lacked talent for art. However, the school administration preferred students who had talent in art and craft. This leads us to believe that the students deficient in language skills were not aware of the theoretical debates in Europe, but still school administration patronized them. In 1885-86, Arabic language and other vernaculars were used as technical language and English was ignored. Director and principal regretted its use, but they had no other option. 91 English was offered, but as an optional subject. To guide the students, Burchett’s Practical Geometry was taught in vernacular in which terms of Arabic, Urdu and English were used. 92 The Director Public Instructions and Kipling realized that the artisans and other students were not well-versed in English which impeded their understanding of the theoretical aspects. It was suggested that more general education was required to orientate them in theory. 93 Owing to the above mentioned reasons, the colonial art administrators appeared to be disdainful, and dissatisfied in their reports. For instance, the officiating director Public Instruction Punjab, while reporting about the working of the school in 1883-84 described it as a “superior sort of workshop”, and the school should “exercise a general influence over the artistic industries of the Province, by acting as aesthetic centre, a school of design, and the source of enlightened criticism and advice” 94 which it failed to become. Andrew, Principal, Mayo School of Arts noted that the school “gave all knowledge of what the province produces”. 95 The Indian schools, as interpreted by Partha Mitter, Thakurta, and others, disarticulated the very artistic values of the subcontinent. However, the case of Mayo School of Arts demonstrates a comparatively different view. Pre-colonial structure of artisan Gharana (family) remained active in the developments in the 103
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
domain of arts and crafts apparently dominated by the colonial state. Language, drawing techniques could not be properly introduced in the later half of the nineteenth century Punjab. By comparing, the debates and reports, cognitive failure of the British art administrators becomes quite obvious. In most of the reports, they acknowledged their limitations and re-defined their strategy of educating locals by appropriating or accepting local norms.
 104
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
END-NOTES
1
Parha Mitter, Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations (Cambridge & NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Also see Partha Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters : History of European Reactions to Indian Art (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1977) 2 Tapati Guha-Thakurta, The Making of a New "Indian" Art: Artists, Aesthetics, and Nationalism in Bengal, c. 1850-1920 (Cambridge & NY: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Also see Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India (New York : Columbia University Press, 2004) 3 See for discussion, Partha Mitter, “Status and Patronage of Artists During British Rule in India (c. 1850-1900)” in Barbara Stoler Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture (Dehli: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp.277-230. 4 Thakurta, The Making of a New "Indian" Art. 5 Arindam Dutta, “Infinite Justice: An Architectural Coda”, Grey Room, No.07, On 9/11 (Spring, 2002), p.44. 6 For instance, Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindustan (1840) by James Fergusson, True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture (1841) by Welby Pugin, Modern Painters (1843) by John Ruskin, Nineveh and its Remains (1848) and Nineveh and Babylon (1853) both by Layard. 7 Mahrukh Keki Tarapor, Art and Design: The Discovery of India in Art and Literature, 1851-1947 (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, July 1977), p.8. 8 George C. M. Birdwood, The Industrial Arts of India (London: Committee of Council on Education, 1880), p. 344. 9 Lara Kriegel, Grand Designs: Labor, Empire, and the Museum in Victorian Culture (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2007), p.192. 10 Ibid., p.142. 11 Matthew Digby Wyatt (1820 –1877) was a British architect and an art historian. He also worked as secretary of the Great Exhibition, Surveyor of the East India Company and the Slade Professor of Fine Art at the University of Cambridge. 12 Kriegel, Grand Designs, p.116. 13 Ibid., p.120. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., p.117. 17 Ibid., p.120-21. 18 See for Henry Cole’s career as an art administrator with particular reference to the Department of Science and Art Arindam Dutta, The Bureaucracy of Beauty: Design in the Age of its Global Reproducibility (NY & London: Routledge, 2007). 19 Ibid., p.17. 20 Tarapor, Art and Design, p.6. 21 Ibid., p.7.
105
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
22
Ibid. Daniel Conway in Travels in South Kensington paid tribute to Henry Cole’s efforts that awakened the Victorian taste towards art. However, Lara Kriegal discards this notion of Conway as an imperial piece of writing. Kriegal addresses the continuities rather than the breaks that the Great Exhibition brought into central position. 24 Kriegel, Grand Designs, p.197. 25 For instance price winning essay of Ralph Nicholson, “The Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste”, and Redgrave’s Supplementary Report on Design. In his report, Redgrave states, ‘to this day, Indian ornament is composed of the same form as it was in the earliest known works’. Cole and his colleagues advocated the fundamentals of design in the Journal of Design and exemplified the Indian products. Tarapor, Art and Design, p.8. 26 Like “An Attempt to Define the Principles which should determine Form in the Decorative Arts”, “An attempt to define Principles which should regulate the Employment of Colour in the Decorative Arts” to name a few. Ibid. 27 Digby Wyatt’s folio on Industrial Arts of the Nineteenth Century (1851) and then Metal-Work, Wornum’s Analysis of Ornament (1856), Redgrave’s Manual of Design, Owen Jones’s Grammer of Ornament (1856). This grammar comprised various articles written on the principles of design which ‘presented final codification of the principles of design as these had been evolved over the past twenty years by the South Kensington theorists’. Ibid., p. 17. 28 Ibid. 29 See for details N.W. Senior, et. al., On the Improvement of Designs and Patterns, and the Extension of Copyright (London, 1841) 30 Kriegel, Grand Designs, p.165. 31 Arjun Appadurai, The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge, 1986) p. 34. 32 Tim Barringer and Tom Flynn, Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum (NY, 1998), p. 49. 33 Kriegel, Grand Designs, p.180. 34 Ibid., p.199. 35 Dutta, The Bureaucracy of Beauty. 36 Ibid. 37 Kriegel, Grand Designs, p.201. 38 Gillian Naylor, The Arts and Crafts Movement: A Study of its Sources, Ideals and Influence on Design Theory (London: Trefoil Publications, 1990), p.101. 39 Art and Its Producers, Collected works of William Morris, vol. Xxii (London, 1914), p.352. 40 Naylor, The Arts and Crafts Movement, p.104. 41 Kriegel, Grand Designs. 42 Naylor, The Arts and Crafts Movement, p.101. 43 Samual K Parker, “Artistic Practice and Education in India: A Historical View” in Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 21, No. 04 (Winter, 1987), p.132. 23
106
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
44
James Mill, The History of British India (London, 1817). Also see Karuna Mantena, “The Crisis of Liberal Imperialism” in Ducan Bell, Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought (NY & London: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.116. 45 Krishna Kumar, “Colonial Citizen as an Educational Ideal” in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 24, No. 04 (Jan 28, 1989), p. PE-45. Also see a more detailed account Krishna Kumar, Political Agenda of Education: A Study of Colonialist and Nationalist Ideas (New Delhi: Sage Publisher, 2005). 46 Macaulay’s Minute on Education. 47 Kumar, “Colonial Citizen as an Educational Ideal”, p. PE-45. 48 Tarapor, Art and Design, p. 55. 49 Ibid., p. 57. 50 WG Archer, India and Modern Art (London, 1959) pp. 18-19. 51 Mitter, “Status and Patronage of Artists During British Rule in India (c. 1850-1900)”, pp.277, 281, 289. 52 J L Kipling and T H Thronton, Lahore As It Was (Lahore: National College of Arts, reprinted in 2001) p. 49. 53 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Dr De Fabeck, Principle Jeypore School of Art (1874)” in Samina Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art: Formative Years under JL Kipling (187494) (Lahore: National College of Arts, 2003), p.157. 54 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Henry Hoover Lock, Principal of Calcutta School of Art (dated 26 July 1873)” in Ibid. 55 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Dr De Fabeck, Principle Jeypore School of Art (1874)” in Ibid. 56 Although Henry Hoover Locke who was another main actor behind the Indian art education suggested that two or three well-equipped schools could serve art than a dozens ill-equipped but Temple disagreed and opined that the natives would not travel too long to take admission in such schools and the school would only ‘increase the artistic culture’ of the town where it was located and the other places would not be influenced by it. See for decussion Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by HH Lock and by Sir Richard Temple in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art. 57 “Memorandum on the the Formation of Mayo School of Art by Baden Powell (Dated 31 May 1872)” in Ibid., p. 137. 58 Memoranda on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Baden Powell, Henry Hoover Locke and Richard Temple in Ibid.. 59 Memoranda on the formation of Mayo School of Art by JL Kipling, Richard Temple and HH Locke in Ibid. 60 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Baden Powell” in Ibid., p.137. 61 See for the discussion on drawing in education in the 19th century Britain, Mervyn Romans, “A Question of Taste: Re-examining the Rationale for the Introduction of Public Art and Design Education to Britain in the Early
107
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
Nineteenth Century” in Mervyn Romans (ed), Histories of Art and Design Education: Collected Essays (Bristol: Intellect Books, 2005). 62 Rafael Cardoso, “A Preliminary Survey of Drawing Manuals in Britain c. 1825-1875 in Ibid., p.30. 63 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Richard Temple”, in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art, p. 143. 64 Ibid., p.143. 65 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by JL Kipling” in Ibid. 66 “Memorandum on the formation of Mayo School of Art by Henry Hoover Locke” in Ibid., p.155. 67 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1886-87” in Ibid., p.74. 68 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1876-77”, p. 38. “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1877-78”, p. 39, in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art. 69 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1886-87” in Ibid., p.72. 70 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1886-87” in Ibid., p.73. 71 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1876-77” in Ibid., p.36. 72 Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art, p.38. 73 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1879-80”, p.41. “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1881-82”, p. 43. “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1882-83”, p. 45. “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1884-85”, p.59. “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1886-87”, p.72. “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1889-90”, p. 81, in Ibid. 74 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1875-76”, p.33 in Ibid. 75 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1876-77” in Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., p. 37. 79 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1883-84” in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art, p. 52. 80 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1879-80” in Ibid.,p. 40. 81 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1886-87” in Ibid., p.73.
108
Hussain Ahmad Khan: Rationalizing the Relationship
82
“Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1876-77”, p. 38. Government buildings were also constructed by keeping in view the limitation of funds. “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1884-85”, p. 61 in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art. 83 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1879-80”, p. 41, in Ibid. 84 Thomas R Metcalf, “Past and Present: Toward an Aesthetic of Colonialism” in GHR Tillotson (ed.), Paradigms of Indian Architecture: Space and Time in Representation and Design (Great Britain: Curzon Press, 1998), p.17. 85 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1882-83” in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art, p.49. 86 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1881-82”, p. 43. Also see “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1883-84”, p. 50. in Ibid. 87 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1891-92”, p. 87. “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1892-93”, p. 93 in Ibid. 88 Arindam Dutta argues that “Foucault’s critiques of power/knowledge have proved all too convenient in identifying the PWD’s systematizing strategy as a rationalist teleology”. See Arindam Dutta, “Strangers within the Gate: Public Works and Industrial Art Reform” in Peter Scriver and Vikramaditya Prakash (eds.), Colonial Modernities: Building, Dwelling and Architecture in British India and Ceylon (London & NY: Routledge, 2007). 89 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1883-84” in Choonara (ed), “Official” Chronicle of the Mayo School of Art, p. 51. 90 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1884-85” in Ibid. 91 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1885-86” in Ibid. 92 “JL Kipling’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1885-86” in Ibid., p. 69. 93 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1891-92” in Ibid., p. 81. 94 “Director Public Instruction’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1883-84” in Ibid. 95 “Andrew’s Report on the Mayo School of Art, Lahore, for 1893-94”, in Ibid., p. 96.
109