India and the future . mind by a certainorder of Indian temple. The sense of heaviness is partlydue, no doubt, to the total absence of the radiating archand dome, and the universal prevalence of the arch (ifso it can be called) and dome constructed of horizontallayers of masonry, each layer projecting a little beyondthat on which it rests. This system of construction isdefended as eliminating the strain from the outwardthrust of the true arch. So it does, no doubt ; but it alsoeliminates the beautiful curve of the arch and the soaringmajesty of the dome, while it permits of the incrustationon
India and the future . mind by a certainorder of Indian temple. The sense of heaviness is partlydue, no doubt, to the total absence of the radiating archand dome, and the universal prevalence of the arch (ifso it can be called) and dome constructed of horizontallayers of masonry, each layer projecting a little beyondthat on which it rests. This system of construction isdefended as eliminating the strain from the outwardthrust of the true arch. So it does, no doubt ; but it alsoeliminates the beautiful curve of the arch and the soaringmajesty of the dome, while it permits of the incrustationon all constructive features of a reckless redundancy ofornament. Is it mere prejudice that prevents one fromtaking any pleasure in deeply-incised decoration uponcolumns and other portions of a building which ought tosuffer no diminution of their strength, and which permitof this erosion only because they are massive out of allproportion to structural requirements ? The most prevalent external feature of Hindu temples 225. a; o hi 3< c 3O cS aE ? a. ART AND CULTURE its origin in the Hindu temple tradition. It owed nothingto Persian art: the best Ahmedabad tracery shows noPersian influence. This may very Hkely be so ; I wouldnot, even if I could, argue the point, for I am in no wayconcerned to dispute the artistic capacity of the Hindu asa man. All I say is that the Hindu as a Hindu—in histemple architecture—has produced nothing one tithe asbeautiful as this marble tracery. It is common in Muham-madan buildings : I never saw it in a Hindu building ;and as Mr. Havell cites no specimen from Hindu buildings,we may pretty safely assume that none exists. What doesit matter, then, whose hand held the chisel, or whethercertain elements in the design can or can not be traced toextra-Indian sources ? The essential and undeniable factis that Muhammadanism begot these things of beauty. Itbegot them very likely out of Hindu craftsmanship, thoughthere is evidence of a considerable import
Size: 1328px × 1881px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., boo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidindiafuture00archuoft
