aditi halbe

The idol within Hinduism once again forms the basis for discussion in this object ethnography. This time though, the focus will not be on a particular deity. This time, the object will be a collection, admittedly arbitrary (in that there is not definite boundary for inclusion or exclusion) consisting of those idols or deities considered sacred within Hinduism. Once again, the question at the heart of this essay attempts to understand what it is that makes an object sacred. In the previous essay, I had approached this question by considering the Ganesh deity within the theoretical discussions set up by Godelier on the sacred and its relation to origin myths, and Baudrillard, on collection. That exercise, rather than simplify what or how the term sacred can be approached, only complicated matters by pointing to the way in which different interpretations of the sacred can weave in and out of what can be seen to be very narrow discussions on the sacred.

This object ethnography then, promises to further complicate the matter by considering some of Gell’s notions on the position of art, in this case specifically Hindu, sacred art and the agency of the object(s) therein. In this essay I would like to consider how sacred art, in the form of idols or deities, is viewed within three different contexts namely: a working temple, a non-working temple and a museum exhibit. In this way I would like to look at the ways in which understanding the sacred is mediated and contextualised within space by the viewer or the devotee. In order to do this I would like to begin by stating some of Gell’s ideas on sacred objects, specifically those dealing with Hindu idol worship. The discussion presented in this paper does not attempt to draw any concrete conclusions but rather is intended to provide a platform from which to approach the sacred.

In Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (1998) Alfred Gell focuses on the social context of art production, circulation and reception. In this way he is looking to examine the substitution of persons by objects as ‘social agents.’ In other words he is looking at the practical, mediatory role of art objects in the social process (Gell, 1998). He makes it a point to note that art is a system of action intended to change the world rather than encode it with symbolic propositions (Gell, 1998). Later in the book, he draws parallels between religion and art by saying that in his mind, the way in which an art lover views an art object is very similar to the way in which a devotee looks to an idol. The similarity, he claims is that in each case, the image is worshipped by the viewer (Gell, 1998). Though I am sure that I have come across this notion before, I have never given it much thought. Dwelling on this point, raises questions as to the context in which sacred objects might be encountered. Specifically, I find that this point then leads me to wonder whether the display of the object (whether in a religious or artistic context) matters at all. The display of sacred art has recently become a central theme preoccupying my mind and class discussion, and so I find Gell’s ideas pertinent. I will come back to this discussion at the end of my paper after looking at ideas about the importance of materiality and particularly sight in Hindu idol worship. In this way, it will be possible to consider the way in which the object informs its context or setting.

A couple years ago, I spent three months in South India working with an archaeologist. Part of her research took us to Hampi, a temple town, now a world heritage site, North-West of Bangalore in the state of Karnataka. We were researching the use of granite as the stone of choice in temple construction in that region. As a result I spent a lot of time within temple compounds. Some of these temples now functioned primarily as tourist attractions, while others functioned primarily as places of worship. At the working temples, when worship was taking place, it was felt that we should partake. In other words it was thought that getting darshan of the deity would be the proper, customary thing to do.

Darshan, as Gell corroborates, literally means seeing the deity. The importance of tactile forms of homage, particularly sight in Hinduism is a point to be emphasised  (Gell, 1998). I make reference to this concept here, because in the process of getting darshan, the devotee is expected to perform ritual acts. It is my understanding that darshan can only be got during the actual worship of the deity or rather when puja is being done. Though I am accustomed to what is expected of me in this situation, it is still one that leaves me uneasy. I am not a religious person and so have always felt ill at ease, because I am convinced that people around me can tell that mine is an empty performance of devotion. I am at a loss to grasp that, which is of utmost importance.

Darshan is the physical bridge between one being and another in which the image of the god is a manifestation of the social Other, thereby making the god/devotee relationship a social one absolutely comparable to the relation between two human beings (Gell, 1998). Hindu deities are honoured as guests as the appropriate behaviour for an honoured guest is like that of an idol- to accept what is offered with imperturbable dignity and impassivity. Thus idols produce “intelligible behaviour” that conforms to certain expectations (Gell, 1998). They thus take on the role of passive agents where they are the targets of agency though not its origin (Gell, 1998). This list of ideas lifted out of Gell’s discussion on Hindu objects help inform the way one responds to sacred art in a religious place. To stay within the confines of the discussion on Hindu art then, I find temples to be quite peaceful, even the bustling working ones. Without getting into too much detail, the structure of a Hindu temple (and here I generalise) is one that begins to tell the devotee or visitor a story from the time they enter the gopuram (entrance) that plays a role in reinforcing those important concepts in Hinduism by way of myth. This is done through the art that adorns the temple structure. Thus, though one may not be able to tell what particular event from Hindu mythology is being depicted, it does not seem important to know the details. You are in a holy place and that information is enough from which to make sense of what you see around you.

It has to be said that it is easier to walk around inquisitively in a non-working temple compound. I don’t feel like I’m treading on people’s toes and no one will ask or want me to take part in any ritual. My point in bringing up these religious spaces whether functioning or not, is that one’s behaviour and expectation within this space is very different from that within a museum. I say this because when I first encountered Hindu religious art in the British Museum and then in the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, I did not think feel like the placement of those objects on display did anything to inform the viewer about where it was from and what it stood for within Hinduism. Yes, the pieces on display were pretty but they were on display purely as art. If I was to agree whole-heartedly with the parallels Gell drew between art and religion, then this should not have bothered me so much. But it did.

Here is the problem then. Gell is very emphatic in the substitution of honoured guest with idols and showing how the object takes on the role of the social other in the social process (Gell, 1998). And though he pays a lot of attention to the agency of the object, I wonder whether this perspective is lost on a non-believer. In his discussion of Hindu idols, I find that the image is being viewed first and foremost as art and only secondarily as religious art. Religion I feel encompasses a lot more than mere representations of gods whether they are considered persons or objects. Thus though an image may “speak” to a person, and in the case of Hindu idols, though a physical relationship maybe formed between god and devotee, I’m not sure whether that is enough to fully contextualise the art.

There has been a lot of discussion within museums in the most effective approaches to displaying sacred art, especially with regards to the display of the immaterial aspects of religion. Does one provide mountains of information to help the non-believer glimpse at what it is that a devotee might see when they view a religious object? A Passion for Asia: The Rockefeller Family Collects, a exhibition put up by the Asia Society, features one Asia object from the Rockerfeller Collection or some sacred significance. This sole object is put on display in the centre of the room with a lot of text around it to help contextualise the art. I visited this exhibition only to be overwhelmed and disappointed because there was too much information and only one object. I found that it was either only possible to pay attention to the text or the object and gave up with both very quickly. There are people within the museum space such as Goswamy, who feel that the object should be presented as “art” with the bare minimum information provided. This will allow the object to speak for itself and that is at the end of the day what a religious object is supposed to do (Goswamy,).

To confuse matters further, Gell stresses that an idol is worshipped because it is neither a person, nor a miraculous machine but a god. Where then does this leave us in our consideration of what is sacred and where it is sacred? How much of what is sacred is formed by one’s personal interpretation of it? Is the context in which the object is encountered helpful? Does it imbue the object with more or less of a sacred quality? If we take Gell’s notion of the idol as homunculus, how does this affect a non-believer?