... if you go to Southern India, you look at the famous Chola bronze of the goddess Parvati dating back to the 12th century. For Indian eyes, she is supposed to represent the very epitome of feminine sensuality, grace, poise, dignity, everything that’s good about being a woman. And she’s of course also very voluptuous
But the Victorian Englishmen who first encountered these sculptures were appalled by Parvati, partly because they were prudish, but partly also just because of just plain ignorance.
They complained that the breasts were way too big, the hips were too big and the waist was too narrow. It didn’t look anything like a real woman – it wasn’t realistic – it was primitive art. And they said the same thing about the voluptuous nymphs of Kajuraho – even about Rajastani and Mogul miniature paintings. They said look these paintings don’t have perspective, they’re all distorted.
They were judging Indian art using the standards of Western art – especially classical Greek art and Renaissance art where realism is strongly emphasized.
But obviously this is a fallacy…
Why? Read the whole lecture.
Ideally, listen to it.
In fact, listen to all the five lectures. Amazing, just amazing.
True she has a terrific figure… voluptuos even… but I don’t think I like her face too much. Donno what, but it reminds me too much of austere buddhist male heads.
it’s really wonder. i like this pic. and the way u explained is gud and it’s heart touching. the title u given this blog is really intresting and i really appriciate ur way of explaination. do keep writing.
Thank u very much and keep it up
Leave a Comment
About
Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan is a copywriter, photographer and goofball from Chennai.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Hi, nice photo.
Something related here
It’s V Ramachandran. He says:
... if you go to Southern India, you look at the famous Chola bronze of the goddess Parvati dating back to the 12th century. For Indian eyes, she is supposed to represent the very epitome of feminine sensuality, grace, poise, dignity, everything that’s good about being a woman. And she’s of course also very voluptuous
But the Victorian Englishmen who first encountered these sculptures were appalled by Parvati, partly because they were prudish, but partly also just because of just plain ignorance.
They complained that the breasts were way too big, the hips were too big and the waist was too narrow. It didn’t look anything like a real woman – it wasn’t realistic – it was primitive art. And they said the same thing about the voluptuous nymphs of Kajuraho – even about Rajastani and Mogul miniature paintings. They said look these paintings don’t have perspective, they’re all distorted.
They were judging Indian art using the standards of Western art – especially classical Greek art and Renaissance art where realism is strongly emphasized.
But obviously this is a fallacy…
Why? Read the whole lecture.
Ideally, listen to it.
In fact, listen to all the five lectures. Amazing, just amazing.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:03 am
True she has a terrific figure… voluptuos even… but I don’t think I like her face too much. Donno what, but it reminds me too much of austere buddhist male heads.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:18 am
@Ramnath: Thanks for the great link.
@Anand: Yes, I got that resemblance to Buddhism too – possibly because of the crown on her ehad that highlights the sqaurish face.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
it’s really wonder. i like this pic. and the way u explained is gud and it’s heart touching. the title u given this blog is really intresting and i really appriciate ur way of explaination. do keep writing.
Thank u very much and keep it up