Attributing a Rajasthani page: Bundi or Kishangarh?
An art club is preparing a caption for a reproduction shown at a school exhibition. The reproduction is a narrow horizontal painting, roughly 20 × 45 cm, on paper: a royal couple seated on a white terrace at night. The woman's face is in strict profile with a sharply pointed nose, a very high forehead and an unnaturally elongated, half-closed eye. The man wears a gold halo. A lotus tank with white flowers and a dark green bank fills the lower left; heavy monsoon clouds and a single flash of lightning fill the upper third. The drawing is delicate, with fine stippling in the sky and foliage; the palette is cool blue-green and slate grey except for the gold. One student argues for Bundi because of the monsoon and the lotus tank; another says Kishangarh because of the face and the halo. The label must satisfy an examiner while remaining honest about uncertainty, and the club has two days.
1. Which attribution should the club adopt, and on what formal evidence? Show why the students' subject-based arguments cannot decide the question.
Read the worked answer
Subject matter cannot decide this, because the monsoon cloud and the lotus tank are stock devices shared across Rajasthani schools, including Bundi, Kotah and Kishangarh. The decisive evidence is the figure idiom and the finish.
- Face: the profile with a receding, very high forehead, a sharp pointed nose, a narrow chin and an elongated, half-closed eye is the signature facial type of the mid-eighteenth-century Kishangarh workshop, familiar from its Krishna–Radha portraits.
- Halo: gold haloes behind the ruler or behind Krishna are used at Kishangarh far more than in Bundi work of the same period.
- Palette and finish: cool blue-greens, slate greys and restrained gold, with delicate stippling in sky and foliage, fit the enamel-like minakari finish associated with Kishangarh. Bundi would more typically show earthier ochres and greens and denser, leaf-by-leaf foliage.
- Format: the narrow horizontal suits an album page or manuscript illustration, so it tells us nothing about school.
Verdict: attribute to the Kishangarh school, eighteenth century, while recording that the Bundi-type motifs are common currency. The conclusion rests on the preponderance of evidence, not on proof - which is exactly why the label must be phrased as an attribution.
2. Draft the wording of the exhibition label and explain the choices of phrasing.
Read the worked answer
A label should give the attribution first and the grounds second, and must never turn a probability into a fact.
- Heading line: "Rajasthani school, Kishangarh, 18th century (attributed); gouache and gold on paper." The word attributed does the work that certainty would otherwise have to fake.
- Evidence in plain sentences: "The elongated profile and the gold halo belong to the Kishangarh idiom; the monsoon clouds and lotus tank are motifs shared with Bundi, so the attribution rests on the figure style rather than on the subject."
- What is not known: artist unnamed, exact date unknown, whether the page belonged to a series unknown.
- What not to write: never "by" a named artist without an inscription, and no precise date ("c. 1750") unless a dated comparison or inscription supports it. With two days available, the extended label can present the two candidate attributions rather than manufacture certainty.
- Vocabulary: keep to terms an examiner will accept - profile, stippling, halo, gouache, wasli if that layered support is what is seen.
An honest attribution with stated grounds scores better than a confident one with none, because it demonstrates the method of art-historical judgement rather than merely its result.
3. What further evidence could settle the attribution, and what evidence would be misleading if relied on?
Read the worked answer
Three kinds of evidence would move the reading from strong to demonstrable.
- Inscriptions and seals. A colophon, or a Persian or Devanagari inscription naming patron, artist or place, and any collector's seal on the reverse, would be near-decisive. Even a later inscription is evidence of provenance.
- Support and technique. Paper fibre, wasli thickness, pigments (natural against synthetic ultramarine), gold leaf against gold paint, and the underdrawing can all be compared against securely dated workshop material; Kishangarh's fine stippling can be examined under magnification.
- Dated comparanda. Matching the facial type and the border convention against albums with known dates from both Kishangarh and Bundi, and checking whether the elongation is systematic across the figures or confined to one.
Misleading if relied on: size, subject, or the mere presence of gold. All three are shared across courts and would license any attribution at all. The club should also record the evidence it could not obtain - an attribution that lists its missing evidence is more scholarly than one defended by adjectives.