UNDERSTANDING SCULPTURAL GROWTH DURING BRITISH REGIME AND DECOLONIZATION THROUGH NATIONALISM

Authors

  • Hanjabam Hemjit Sharma Research Scholar, Department of Visual Arts, Assam University, Silchar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.749

Keywords:

Sculptural, Growth, Decolonization and Nationalism

Abstract [English]

Cave paintings and sculptures uncovered from prehistoric eras often represented human, mythological, ornately adorned animal, and other animal forms. Other animal species were also occasionally shown. Artists who contributed to the creation and distribution of concepts connected with Indian modernism were shaped by the most famous art institute and its teaching staff. This institute was responsible for moulding the artists who contributed. These art schools and centres stood in stark contrast to the royal art tradition practised in India's most important kingdoms. Not only was the old method of teaching art considerably different from how it was being taught now, but the activities that were being taught were also pretty different. The role that Calcutta played in the formation of contemporary art in India. This is necessary in order to understand the role that Calcutta played in the formation of contemporary art in India. There is considerable doubt that the majority of these centres originated in India's more recent cities such as New Delhi, Baroda, Chennai, Lahore, Nagpur, and Indore, amongst others, where there were essentially no pre existing artistic vocabulary to speak of. They rapidly developed into centres of artistic activity, complete with thriving communities of artists, patrons, galleries, prize-giving organisations, and educational institutions, thereby creating an ecosystem that fostered the art form and encouraged its dissemination. These centres of artistic activity are now known as cultural nexuses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Datta, R. (2002). From Indian to Individual. In R. Mukherjee, Art of Bengal a Vision Defined 1955-1975. Kolkata: CIMA Gallery Pvt. Ltd, 43-135.

Fabri, C. (1986). Contemporary Indian Art Series. New Delhi, R. K. Bhatnagar, Secretary, Lalit Kala Akademi, B. R. Katyal at the New Delhi Statesman Press, 45-55.

Ghosh, D. S. (1980). Tradition and Modernity: A Note. Nandan (An Annual Art and Aesthetics), Kala Bhavan, Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan, 21-34.

Joshi, D. N. (2014). Ancient Science of Indian Sculpture. Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad, 45-56.

Ketkar, S. (2017). The History of Indian Art. Jyotsna Prakashan, 61-70.

Kunhiraman, K. (2020, 08 10). Retrieved From 2020, October 08. www.kanayikunhiraman, 80-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.PANCA20-IA-08

Kurtha, B. K. (1998). Art of Modern India. New Delhi: Thames and Hudson, 57-60.

Lynn, D. M. (2005). Sculpture, Glass and American Museums. University of Pennsylvania Press, 21-30.

Mago, P. N. (2001). Contemporary Art in India- A Perspective. National Book Trust, India, 20-23.

Mosteller, F. J. (1991). The Measure of Form (A New Approach for the Study of Indian Sculpture). Abhinav Publications, India, 35-45.

Rao Ramachandra, P. R. (1969). Contemporary Indian Art, Hyderabad, India, 12-15.

Saraswati, S. K. (1975). A Survey of Indian Sculpture. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 15-20.

Subrahmanyan, K. G. (1987). The Living Tradition-Perspectives on Modern Indian Art. Seagull Books, Calcutta, 13-17.

Tomory, E. (1989). History of Fine Arts in India and the West. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private Limited, 25-60.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-28

How to Cite

Sharma, H. H. (2024). UNDERSTANDING SCULPTURAL GROWTH DURING BRITISH REGIME AND DECOLONIZATION THROUGH NATIONALISM. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(1), 1154–1160. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.749