Okay, this sculpture is one of my all-time favorites; it caught my eye on my first trip to the British Museum, nine years ago, and this time I wallowed in the chance to gaze at it again and drink up its beauty, its sexiness, its teeming mass of incident. There was a huge gallery filled with fascinating sculptures and artifacts connected with Hinduism and Buddhism, but this one is more than enough for me.
For MacGregor, this sculpture goes right to the heart of what’s baffling to most westerners about Hinduism: how can a religion both fundamentally advocate detachment, a belief that this world is not all there is, schools of asceticism, a seeking of release from endless reincarnation, redemption, as the ultimate goal; and at the same time also champion the senses, joys, stuff, pleasures of this world? As far as I understand it, British Evangelical Christian missionaries in the 19th century really pissed off the Indians by cultural warfare, seeking to campaign against and discourage the Hindu religion. In particular, they were fired up by the traditions of murder of infant girls (in some Northern regions, in some wealthy families, where additional girls would be a financial liability on a family); suttee, the tradition of burning a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre (if it started with Madri wife of Pandu, in the Mahabharata, Brünnhilde and Isolde do it, too); and the Thugee business, which seems to be little more than a Hollywood fantasy. I’m sure that culturally, the Victorian British were also just basically up in arms when it came to a sculpture like this one, or the Tara from Sri Lanka we saw earlier (she stands a few feet away from her friends here in the big Asia Gallery).
Because this sculpture obviously revels both in the sensual pleasure of the beautiful bodies—what I’ve always considered the heart of the art form of sculpture—and the tenderness of their loving glance. MacGregor points out that Shiva’s bull is gazing with the same rapt adoration at Parvati’s lion, which you might be able to see a little better in the photo I took in 2002:
In Christianity, artists often get sentimental over the gaze between mother and child; but all three big western monotheistic religions assume a male god, and a kind of patriarchy which often seems to verge on misogyny. Don’t think that the Hindus were free of those characteristics, either...suttee and girl-slaughter are pretty extreme examples of patriarchal misogyny. But it’s refreshing that the Hindu concept of divinity involves both male and female, and involves male and female really into each other. Using a sculpture like this as an aid to devotion (MacGregor points out that people sometimes leave little lais of flowers, or candles, or offerings by these sculptures, since just because they’re in a museum doesn’t mean they’re no longer holy) would presumably dispose you to consider the sex you enjoy in your own life a sanctifying, godlike enterprise. And who’s to say it isn’t, in today’s world?
Before leaving this statue, I’ll mention that at this writing (several months, now, after my visit to the museum) I’ve just watched the long Peter Brook Mahabharata films again. Very beautiful, and any number of things about that story are completely baffling, as ever. In terms of the patriarchy and misogyny, yes, it’s interesting how much that has in common with Lord of the Rings and The Illiad, in terms of being basically a story about boys and war. Draupadi, wife of the five Pandavas, may be a role model for Indian women through all time...I gotta confess I don’t find her very sympathetic, she’s all about personal pride and revenge. Evaluating these characters morally, I feel like lumping her in with Duryodhana, the bad guy, who’s a weird little ball of hatred, resentment, and dissatisfaction. The moms, Kunti and Gandhari, are both fascinating characters, but I wouldn’t call either one a role model. Parvati, Shiva’s consort in this statue, is often linked in the myths to more terrifying, devouring mother figures, Durga and Kali. Who’s the ideal female role model in Hinduism? It must be Sita, in the Ramayana. But I need a refresher on her story.
No comments:
Post a Comment