Bhakti paintings - different styles and schools of art

Madanmohan das posted the beautiful painting of Pancha-tattva shown below, and I realised I had no idea when or where it was created, or by whom.

I was wondering, are there specific schools of bhakti painting linked to particular sampradayas, rasas, philosophical affiliations, historical time periods, or geographic locations?

I don't know much about art but do recall that various Western art schools are linked to the philosophical and cultural settings from which they arose (e.g. Renaissance art and the rise of individualism, or Dutch bourgeous art and the rise of the commercial classes).

So if anyone has a devotional painting they could say something about, in terms of when and where, or by whom, it was painted, I would be grateful in order to expand my puny understanding of the links between devotion and art...

[attachmentid=1291]

Does anyone have something to post from silpa sastra?

That's interesting. There was an artist called Sital Banerji who painted alot of beautiful images of Radha Krsna. Does anyone know anything about him? I once did a google run, but came up with nothing of relevance.
There was once a callender printed with 12 plates of his work.
There is also a certain B K Mitra who did illustrations for the Gita Press publications. His paintings are really excellent. that is B K Mitra ( if I'm not mistaken )

Just an observation:

The artist who painted the above pancha tattva has no sense of proportion, whereas the other artist (Mitra?) does.

Kamala, I'm right there with you. I too have a puny understanding of art. I really only wanted to contribute that many societies have very rigid frameworks in which art is done, especially religious art. Look for example at the Egyptians, where the basic art style remained virtually unchanged for 3,500 years. (We'll just ignore the Amarna period for now ) I wonder if Indian/Hindu art is much the same, with somewhat rigid structures that must be followed. Thoughts?

BTW, it may be out of proportion, but I really like the Pancha-Tattva picture

About being out of proportion I think you'll find that alot. Many images are characture like, after all these are paintings of him who is beyond sense perception. For true dimentions of body we have to find those kind of pictures. Nyagrodaparimandala is someone whose body conforms with particular markings and dimensions, or Mahapurusa laksanam. There is a referance to it in CC but I've no time now to look it up

Yes - there are whole sections of various Sanskrit texts that define physiognomy, which has been used for the carving of deities. However one must consider if some of the descriptive language is more hyperbole than literal.

As far as human anatomy, there are variations within the norm (viz. exclusion of those afflicted with extreme conditions such as dwarfism). However, there is a certain range that is aesthetically pleasing - symmetry being a prominent feature. Certainly there is room for interpretation, considering the subjective nature of the ideal of beauty (people will differ in their opinions).

Another consideration is stylistic renderings by artists, which serve the purpose of putting a unique indelible personal stamp on a work, basically according to the artist's whim. Can any one artist please her/his entire audience? Not likely. However there are certain artists that have more universal appeal - hence the fame of DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" portrait. By that criterion, Mitra is going to be favored over the painter of the above Panca-tattva. In other words, it is not just my personal opinion.

I noticed something interesting when passing by the toy section at Target the other day. Granted Barbie dolls have always been skewed to the absurdly thin waist and other extreme features. I was shocked to see that not only the Barbies, but also several other dolls now have such thin arms and legs that they resemble holocaust victims that have been starved. OK, they are ostensibly just toys for young girls, yet such dolls have been considered a cause of pathological behavior in the population, such as anorexia, on account of instilling an ideal that is unrealistic and a little crazy. A thin waist is idealized in Sanskrit texts, but that does not mean a waist that is freakishly narrow to the point that an actress or fashion model will actually have ribs removed to achieve it.

Eyebrows are something else altogether. Many people have such bushy and thick brows, that some plucking is in order. Of course there will be a certain percentage of people that prefer the natural look, but they will be a tiny minority.

The Chinese have favored tiny feet in women for centuries. The problem is that the foot binding employed to achieve that ideal leaves the women crippled for life.

At any rate, it is an interesting concept to ponder: That in Goloka there may be some other standard for proportions than what we have in this world.

I think I'm inclined towards more chubby proportions - don't they call it "healthy" in Indian culture. I think that "fattism" is absent in Goloka with all the sweets they eat!

...here is a delight for the eyes, heart & mind:

[attachmentid=1384]

Here's something Thakura Bhaktivinoda says refering more to the Sri Arca Vigraha or worshipable image, which would no doubt include pictures.

"It has been shown that God is personal and all-beautiful. Sages like Vyasa and others have seen that beauty in their soul's eyes. They have left us descriptions. Of course, word carries grossness of matter. But still Truth is percievable in those descriptions. According to those descriptions one delineates a Sri Murti and sees the Great God of our heart there with intense pleasure. Brethren! is that wrong or sinful? Those that say God has no form either material or spiritual and again imagine a false form for worship are certainly idolatrous. But those who see the spiritual form of the Deity in their soul's eyes, carry that impression as far as possible to the mind, and then frame an emblem for the satisfaction of the material eye for continual study of the higher feeling are by no means idolatrous. While seeing a Sri Murti, do not even see the image itself but see the spiritual model of the image and you are a pure theist."

Why should such descriptions be called "hyperbole"?

This is what was meant by characture-like as you can see but there is something very special about the mood of the pictures which conveys something, O I don't know