The Return of Indian Images

In “The Lives of Indian Images”, Davis illustrates the symbolic significance of idols in both the Western and Indian context. In this instance he distinguishes between the, what I term as “secular eye” and what he terms as the “devotional eye”. He describes how the object is viewed as sacred in one context and how it is viewed as an aesthetically beautiful art form in the other, without any reference to its sacred qualities. Although the audience members may be told of its sacred qualities the object loses this significance in secular eyes because of its position within a Museum as opposed to a sacred realm such as a temple. However, I believe that the object is worshipped in both instances and thus some sort of sacredness is attached to the object in both contexts.

Davis describes the history behind these objects and how they gained their status through the imposing of Indian values according to place and time in history. The object was a signifier for the community in which it was situated, it never lost meaning, but instead gained meaning. For example, the political meaning of idols changed as leading powers confiscated them. They became something more, they signified the community before and what they believed the image represented and also now came to signify the political gain for the leading power. Given this example, I argue that Indian images are given more meaning in a Museum as well. They are significant because of their history and also because they are now symbols of art that is “universal” in nature. These Indian images or idols have transcended local borders and are placed in “secular” sacred places, (what I mean by this is that a museum is secular in relation to Indian images, but is sacred to a Western audience who appreciates art), and are thus understood by a universal audience and not only an Indian audience. In short, the object is sacred to someone who worships it and someone who appreciates it, although the degree of its sacredness is completely different, it is without a doubt an object of admiration in both contexts.

Based on Davis’s arguments I would argue that images are sacred in every context when they are displaced from place to place. Even the Muslim’s who came into contact with the Somanatha. Although, the actual object in its entirety was not sacred or symbolic for the Ummah, the destroyed object becomes sacred for the Ummah because it is symbolic of the recognition that there is only one True God, Allah. This sacred identity attributed to the destroyed image is as meaningful to a Muslim Somanatha object in its entirety is to a Hindu.

What is very interesting about the article is how these images were viewed upon contact of them. Many of the reasons behind the capture of these items were solely because of the attraction it caused. When may of the rulers stumbled upon these images they described them in terms of their design regardless of their religious, political, or economic symbolic meanings. Can this mean that these images were seen as aesthetically pleasing, and in turn they were imbued with religious, political and economic meaning? If they were not beautiful, would they have any such status? Does the images place in a museum return it to its original status and beauty away from any cultural, religious, and historical distinctions?