his generation was at the cusp of late colonization/decolonization in India, and thus he benefitted as a child from being educated in both Indian and Western ways. Mitter grew up with multiple heritages, being brought up in an Indian Bengali household which was favored by the British during colonization, giving them access to the Western perspective. Although Mitter had his roots in India, his parents were very cosmopolitan and exposed him to Western ideals of modernism. The dual culture he experienced during the colonial period provided young Mitter with an enriching and strong foundation towards his understanding of history and art, which he later benefitted from. When Mitter decided to get a doctorate degree he went to see E.H. Gombrich, with whom he had a seminal conversation, in regards to which Mitter states, “I still remember the conversation. He said: I find the ornate decoration of Hindu temples difficult to come to terms with; with your knowledge of two worlds [India and the West], perhaps you could answer that question for me. Thus, began a long relationship that ended in 2001, with his death.”3 Over the years, Mitter began researching more about the relationship between Centre and Periphery, as it was very clear that cultural presumptions generally acted as a substitute for objective knowledge of Hinduism. This continued even as late as the nineteenth century. Despite the impressive colonial archive on Indian art and religion, misrepresentation by the western academics was prevalent. Mitter, in an interview with art historian Keith Moxey, gave two such examples, one of which being Georg Hegel, who put forward his own exaggerations regarding the monstrous depictions of Indian gods, stating “particular shapes are drawn out into colossal and grotesque proportions in order that they may attain to universality as in figures with many heads, arms, and so on.”4 The other example he gave was of John Ruskin who lamented on the absence of nature in Indian art, stating “It is quite true that the art of India is delicate and refined. But it has one curious character distinguishing it from all other art of equal merit in design -- it never represents a natural fact it will not draw a man, but an 3
Keith Moxey, and Partha Mitter. “A “Virtual Cosmopolis”: Partha Mitter In Conversation with Keith Moxey.” Art Bulletin 95.3 (2013): 382. 4 Keith Moxey, and Partha Mitter. “A “Virtual Cosmopolis”: Partha Mitter In Conversation with Keith Moxey.” Art Bulletin 95.3 (2013): 387.
38