A senior and well known academician asked me why was there no theory of Indian art while the theory of Western art is so well developed? To answer this perhaps we need to reframe our questions not so much around art, its nature or the differences between the mentioned parts of the world, as we may need to ask what theory is? Theory is the generalization of repeatedly occurring facts which are systematically observed and recorded. Fact is therefore the foundation of theory. Fact is an activity conducted by the individual; theory answers to what end such activities are conducted. Theory contains three things, an act of will, a goal of the act and its outcome. Such a framework may help us ask not only questions of theory around art but about the nature of theory.

Indian art is a search not for an individual’s meaning but of symbols to represent the society and its life. It seeks those which are manifestations of the law of nature, the will of the Universe, immutable by human endeavor or agency. Art, produced by the Indians are commodities, designed for the consumption of the society and by individuals as social beings. It must overwhelm, overawe and overcome the individuality in the individual. The artist must merge into his creation and produce a work that resonates as an eternal, immutable and universal symbol. Interestingly, this is how one defines religion. Art is produced as religion in India.

In the west, art is the reflection of individuality. Even when the subject is acutely religious, production of artistic forms expresses the individual agency. What is important is that the artist presents his work as the creator would do, claiming the status of an originator of life. The Western artist becomes God; the Indian artist lets God work through him. In the taxonomy of the Vedanta, the Dwaita and Advaita both appear but they do so in different order in the artists of the respective locations. The Western artist is an Advaita is he claims himself as God but places his work as a distinct work to be regarded as the work of an individual and thus emerging into dualism as in the separation between the art and the artist. The Indian artist is a dvaita to begin with but would become one with his creation as the end of process.

Western art flourishes through non royal patrons or the likes of the Medicis, Indian art is guild based, produced on command of the patron, usually the king. Indian art’s purpose and outcomes are fixed; it follows the diktats of religion. The western artist produces both a choice and a decision

With the above-mentioned features of art in India and of the west, we now have a fairly good idea about why theory cannot be generated for Indian art. The western art is an individual act and hence a fact; the Indian art is collective, its outcome defined and purpose fixed. Indian art might be a phenomenon, but not a fact. In the absence of facts, we are unable to produce a theory of art for India, though we may study the matter phenomenologically. In other words, while the western art may be reworded as a social action, the Indian art is not a social action for it represents obedience and an unquestioning faith but not a choice. Art production is thus confined into a caste profession, a group activity, a traditional occupation. Due to the absence of agency and choice in Indian art, there cannot be a theory of art.

Art in India has often been used for political battles, art in the West have been used for ideological battles. Hindu art has competed with Buddhist art, Jain art has tried to impose yet another series of appropriations, but it is the Western art that has conversed with the society, challenging beliefs and perspectives of people rather than be the cannon fodder of kings. Western art has bent beliefs, led ideological warfares, challenged world views and liberated human thought. Indian art has created new symbols of overpowering imagination, overwhelming thoughts and emotions. One can be immersed in it indeterminably but perhaps not converse with it. Hence Indian art is not an activity that liberates human agency, and this is why it never “happens” , leaving us bereft of theory.