I have found no written source or other
authority for either assertion. M. Rhie
(1999, p. 68) suggests in the same vein
that the New sMan-ris of the Potala murals
became a national style for Gelukpa monasteries
throughout Tibet, and an international
style, spreading also to Gelukpa establishments
of Mongolia and China. She describes this
as "a handsome and complex style,
which can overpower the viewer with its
mass of detail."
Against this, I have proposed that the
continuation of the New sMan-ris (sMan-gsar)
of Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho was the gTsang-ris,
especially at Tashilhunpo, and not the
dBus-ris.14
The typical dBus-ris of the nineteenth
and early twentieth century was a continuation
of the old sMan-ris (sMan-rnying), for
which I presented some evidence in a previous
study.15
One further term sometimes associated
with the later (Old) sMan-ris typical
of dBus province is E-ris. There was a
special connection between the nineteenth-century
dBus-ris painters and the district E in
southern dBus, for many influential painters
and sculptors came from there.16
The well-known modern artist and authority
bsTan-pa-rab-brtan informed me that his
family, the Kha-dog Lho-ma, came from
Kong-po-smad village in E. bsTan-pa-rab-brtan's
father was bsKal-bzang-nor-bu, son of
Tshe-ring-rgya-bo, an important painter
patronized by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.
Tshe-ring-rgya-bo's father was the painter
Padma. bsTan-pa-rab-brtan's paternal (great)
uncle was Las-tshan Tshe-ring-don-grub,
a senior thangka painter of the Thirteenth
Dalai Lama with an official rank, whose
photograph in 1937 by C. Suydam Cutting
has been reproduced numerous times, most
recently by C. Harris 1999.17
Thus these painters came from E and embodied
an E-bris hereditary lineage that has
continued down to bsTan-pa-rab-brtan himself.
1.b.i. New sMan-ris of Tashilhunpo,
forerunner to the gTsang-ris
Rhie, p. 67, states that the founder
of the gTsang New sMan-ri, Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho,
was "primarily used for the wall
paintings and various paintings and thangkas
sponsored by the Fifth Dalai Lama and
his teacher the Pan-chen Lama..."
This gives the wrong impression, since
Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho was only known
to have painted once in Lhasa or dBus
province (working on the Potala murals
in 1648), but otherwise was exclusively
active in his native province, gTsang,
mostly at Tashilhunpo.
Similarly, sMan-thang-pa sMan-bla-don-grub
is not recorded to have painted for the
1st Dalai Lama in Lhasa or elsewhere in
dBus (Central Tibet). His only recorded
murals (and writings) were executed in
gTsang.
The extraordinary Shakyamuni, no. 183
(Ru 75), p. 454f., is the best example
of Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho's New sMan-ris
style in this collection. I would place
it in Tashilhunpo of the second half of
the seventeenth century or early eighteenth
century. There is no need to add "or
Eastern Tibet" to the description.
The portrait of a Nyingma Lama, no. 68
(Ru 307), p. 258f., is indeed an example
of the gTsang-ris, i.e. a later (eighteenth-
or nineteenth-century) successor to Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho's
"New sMan-ris." I cannot detect
any elements of the Karma sGar-bris modifying
it.
I also agree that the portrayal of Tsongkhapa
at the center of a Gelukpa refuge tree,
no. 191 (Ru 571), p. 473, is probably
Tashilhunpo art by a follower of Chos-dbyings-rdo-rje's
tradition, just as attributed. Note again
the strong preference for faces in partial
relief. A careful working out of the lineage
lamas above should yield a more accurate
dating.
1.b.ii. New sMan-ris in the Eighteenth-
or Nineteenth-Century Khams:
A
Hybrids Man-ris/sGar-bris
"Green Tara saving from the eight
perils," no. 38 (Ru 237), p. 207,
is clearly Khams art of ca. the nineteenth
century. My hypothesis is that it represents
the school of Chab-mdo Phur-bu-tshe-ring
that was later called the Khams-bris or
New sMan-ris of Khams. Its connection
with the New sMan-ris of gTsang remains
unknown.
The composition of no. 38 seems to derive
from an original commissioned or planned
by Si-tu Pan-chen: note the architectural
details. But its use of deep blues and
greens in the landscape is not typical
of Si-tu's own commissions. Some elements
such as the crags to the main figure's
right and the flowers and leaves beneath
her lotus seat hint at a nineteenth-century
hybrid sMan-ris/sGar-bris style.
Virupa and the Path and Fruition Refuge
Tree, no. 189 (Ru 352), p. 468f., portrays
two different lineages of the Lam 'bras:
the sLob bshad (to the viewer's left)
and the Tshogs bshad (to the right), that
come together in the main lama below (no.
44). Something has gone wrong with the
numbering of the later figures in the
description (p. 469). Such a dark blue
sky was, to my knowledge, rarely used
in the best-known Khams styles. (Cf. the
dark sky of the thangka of the eighty-four
adepts (grub chen) showing Blo-gter-dbang-po
below as guru, in the first Hahn collection
catalogue, K. Tanaka 1997, plate 51.)
2. mKhyen-ris
2.a. Early mKhyen-ris of mKhyen-brtse
and Disciples
The mKhyen-ris is a rare style. Regarding
its founder, mKhyen-brtse of Gong-dkar,
Rhie and Thurman (1999, pp. 31,; 74, n.
52; 497; etc.) continue to use the mistaken
name "Khyentse Wangchuk." The
school's founder was actually called mKhyen-brtse
Chen-mo ("Chen-mo" was his title
as master artist and overseer of large
projects). No Tibetan source calls him
mKhyen-brtse-dbang-phyug, and I have tried
to clarify the confusion of mKhyen-brtse-chen-mo
with Tshar-chen's great disciple mKhyen-
brtse-dbang-phyug, to correct the erroneous
suggestion of E. G. Smith 1970.18 No
written source links mKhyen-brtse explicitly
to either Gyantse or Lhasa monastic universities,
though if he was a co-student of sMan-thang-pa
(as tradition maintains), he may have
studied under gNas-rnying artists and
painted at Gyantse alongside sMan-thang-pa.
2.b. The Revival of the mKhyen-ris
by the Fifth Dalai Lama and Others in
Seventeenth-Century
Central
Tibet
"Guru Rinpoche as Suryaprabha,"
no. 61 (Ru 675), p. 246f., is, I agree,
an example of the mKhyen-ris. It is probably
also seventeenth century. But it is not
from eastern Tibet. In uncertain cases,
it would be better to list neither provenance
rather than both.
"Shakyamuni," no. 2 (Ru 39),
p. 138, is said to be mKhyen-ris from
eastern Tibet, but this is unlikely. No
lineage of mKhyen-ris is recorded to have
reached Khams. (A mKhyen-ris attribution
for the arhat set, nos. 24-27, is much
less certain.)
2.c. A mKhyen-ris Branch Surviving
at from the Late Seventeenth Century
The 'Bri-gung abbatial history by bsTan-'dzin-padma'i-rgyal-mtshan
(1770-1826), a painter and authority on
art, records that a branch of the mKhyen-ris
survived at 'Bri-gung from the late seventeenth
century onward. "Padmasambhava Refuge
Host Field Tree," no. 193 (Ru 413),
p. 476f., seems to be a later painting
from this 'Bri- gung tradition and does
not need to be classified as "Eastern
Tibetan."19 Though not in a typical
sMan-ris style of dBus, the painting does
come from central Tibet and has a 'Bri-gung
subject matter. The attribution (p. 477)
"non-sectarian" is problematic;
is it not a refuge tree for a rNying-ma
tradition practiced among the 'Bri-gung-pa?
The inscriptions identify masters of the
'Bri-gung tradition.
Incidentally, no. 113 (Ru 362), called
"A Drigung Kagyu Lama," is in
fact a 'Brug-pa bKa-brgyud lama with his
lineage, though I have yet to work out
the exact tradition.
3. sGar-bris
3. a. Early sGar-bris
The authors assert (p. 497) in connection
with the "Karma Gardri" that
most artists painting in the Karma-sgar-bris
style
were followers of the Karma bKa'-brgyud
in Khams and Amdo. But Karma-sgar-bris painters
(like Karma bKa'-brgyud monasteries) were
unknown in Amdo.20
The main figure in "A Lama,"
no. 132 (Ru 418), p. 363ff., is not a
dGe-lugs-pa lama. He is the 12th-century
Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud master sGom-chung
Shes-rab-byang-chub, nephew of sGam-po-pa
(1079-1153) and younger brother of sGom-pa
Tshul-khrims-snying-po (1116-1169). This
painting is from a series of bKa'-brgyud-pa
masters and may date to the late sixteenth
or first half of the seventeenth century.
The identification of the main figure
is only possible from the inscriptions:
2 3
1
4 5
6 7
8
Inscriptions:
1. sgom chung shes rab byang chub
2. slob dpon thog med
3. rje naro pa
4. gcung grags mdzes
5. sgom zhi mdzes
sGom-chung Shes-rab-byang-chub is a minor
and little-known figure in most contexts,
but he did appear as a main figure in
a still unpublished thangka series depicting
the successive rebirths of the dPal-spungs
Si-tu sprul-sku. Could this painting be
from such a set?
Similar series of portraits with main
figures set in elegant (Ming) Chinese
landscapes were painted in central Tibet
by the early seventeenth century. I have
seen photographs of an almost complete
set from that period depicting the series
of the successive rebirths of the Jo-nang-pa
lama Kun-dga'-grol-mchog or Taranatha.21
An undated series of 'Bri-gung masters
preserved in Limi in the northwestern
borderlands of Nepal may also be this
old.22
A major difference between this painting
(no. 132) and the portraits of Pan-chen
Lama successive rebirths attributed by
me to Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho is the positioning
of the main figure here on the central
axis.23 The composition in no. 132 is
balanced and its central figure, relatively
small.
The portrait of the Ninth Karma-pa dBang-phyug-rdo-rje
(no. 106, Ru 163, p. 321f.) should be
considered as probably early Karma sGar-bris,
but it should not be automatically attributed
to Khams. It could also have come from
central Tibet. Nam-mkha'-bkra-shis, founder
of the sGar-bris, did not paint in Khams,
but only in dBus, as far as we know.
3.b. Later sGar-bris, Si-tu's
Influence
The later Karma sGar-bris style that,
from the 1730s onward, flourished again
mainly in Khams under the influence and
patronage of Si-tu Pan-chen was the main
subject of my chapter in the catalogue
(pp. 89-125). Quite a few sets commissioned
by Si-tu Pan-chen in this style are known,
and more continue to appear.
A noteworthy example of the style is
the portrait of a then still unidentified
"Shamar Lama," p. 87, plate
4. The mid- or late-eighteenth-century
dating I proposed for this thangka agrees
with the identity of the main
figure I have since been able to establish.
His facial features and hand gestures
identify him as the Tenth Zhwa-dmar, Mi-pham
Chos-grub-rgya-mtsho (1742-1792).
By contrast, the dPal-ldan-lha-mo of
the Gelukpa tradition, no. 146 (Ru 179),
p. 386f., is not done in a Si-tu style.
There is nothing to identify this as from
Eastern Tibet.
4. Regional Styles
Tibetan painters commonly distinguished
recent styles according to geographical
origin, using such terms as:
a. dBus-bris (recent successor to the
Old sMan-ris) (1.a.i. above)
b. gTsang-bris (successor to the New sMan-ris
of Tashilhunpo) (1.b.i. above)
c. Khams-bris.
d. Amdo-bris (regional variant of 1.a.i?)
(To this one might add styles from outside
Tibet proper, such as: e. Ching Dynasty
Court art in China and f. Mongolian Buddhist
painting.)
With few exceptions, these do not replace
the above classification according to
school, but rather identify where the
school later had many followers. Strictly
speaking, the regional styles require
further sub-classifications, since dBus,
gTsang and Khams provinces were all home
to more than one school. Still, Tibetans
commonly did speak of a style of a given
province, referring to its most widespread
style.
Ye-shes-'jam-dbyangs (1932-), an old
painting master of the 'Bri-gung tradition
who originally came from sNur-la in Ladakh,
repeated a traditional list of six regional
or local styles:24
[1] Gyari [rgya ris], the painting school
of China
[2] Khamri [khams ris], the painting school
of Khams
[3] Driri ['bri ris], the painting school
of Drigung ['Bri-gung in northern dBus
province]
[4] Tsuri [mtshur ris], the painting school
of Tsurpu [mTshur-phu monastery in northeast
dBus]
[5] Eri [e ris], the painting school of
E district [in southeast dBus province]
[6] Tsangri [gtsang ris], the painting
school of Tsang province [particularly
at Tashilhunpo]
Often painters differentiated regional
styles on the basis of the relative lightness
or darkness of their overall color schemes.
Ye-shes-'jam-dbyangs, for instance, repeated
four traditional descriptions of painting
schools:25
[1] "Chinese style was like a rainbow
in the sky" (rgya bris nam mkha'i
'ja' tshon 'dra).
[2] "The painting school from Khams
was like the dusk of evening" (khams
ris mun pa rub pa 'dra).
[3] "The style of E district is like
the dawn" (e bris nam mkha' langs
pa 'dra).26
[4] "The painting school from Drigung
is like after sunrise" ('bri bris
nyi ma shar ba 'dra).
Thus the colors of one non-dBus school,
that of Khams, were comparatively dark
and muted (like those of the gTsang style),
as after dusk has fallen. The styles of
two dBus-district traditions were lighter.
That of E (the g.Ye-ris or E-bris of dBus)
was, however relatively faint, like the
colors at dawn, while those of the 'Bri-gung
(the 'Bri-bris) were lighter and "paler"
(skya ba), like after sunrise.
In the above list, "Khams style"
does not refer to the Karma-sgar-bris,
which was listed above separately as the
Tsuri (mTshur-bris) and possessed a light
palette. Instead, it refers to a darker
sMan-ris/sGar-bris synthesis the predominated
in many parts of Khams by the early twentieth
century (presumably the style of such
nineteenth-century painters as Chab-mdo
Phur-bu-tsher-ring and his followers).
This darker Khams style may be represented
by catalogue nos. 38 (Ru 237), 67 (Ru
678), 116 (Ru 276), and 187 (Ru 367).
Wangchuk (dBang-phyug) of Ladakh similarly
contrasted the main (Old sMan-ris) painting
tradition typical of the whole of dBus
province in central Tibet with his own
gTsang (New sMan-ris) style:27
The
colors of dBus are like dawn.
The
colors of gTsang are like dusk
In actual practice, the relatively lighter
or darker colors can be detected most
easily in the skies. Such nutshell characterizations
are useful for differentiating the central-Tibetan
sMan-ris traditions, but they should not
be used without other stylistic criteria.
The late painter Shel-dkar Wandrak (dBang-grags,
1925-1988) from western gTsang similarly
stated that the early-twentieth-century
Lhasa style (here referring primarily
to an Old sMan-ris, the E-ris) was overall
much lighter than the gTsang style of
Tashilhunpo (the New sMan-ris). For the
coloration of clouds, its artists used
only blue and green, whereas red- and
orange-tinged clouds were also possibilities
for Tashilhunpo artists. Lhasa artists
preferred perfectly balanced compositions,
while Tashilhunpo artists often sketched
compositions that were not symmetrical.
He added that Lhasa artists typically
used to space very evenly the five skulls
or the five golden rigs-lnga ornaments
on the heads of deities. Some Tashilhunpo
artists would, by contrast, place the
three central ones closely together, while
leaving a wider gap between them and the
two outside ones.28
continue
_____________________________
|
See
Jackson 1993, p. 116. [back] |
|
Jackson
1996, p. 345 and note 779. My assertion
seems to have found acceptance by
C. Harris (1999), p. 65. Harris's
uncertainty (ibid.,) about the founder
of the New sMan-ris (sman ris gsar
ma) is simply a confusion of two similar
names, [gTsang-pa] Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho
and [Karma-pa] Chos-dbyings-rdo-rje.
The identities of these contemporary
painters are now well established
(see Jackson 1996, part II, chapters
8 and 9).. [back] |
|
See
Jackson 1996, p. 345. [back]
|
|
C.
Harris 1999, p. 89, fig. 38. [back] |
|
See
Jackson 1996, p. 139ff., and Jackson
1997, Singer and Denwood eds., p.
257f. [back]
|
|
On
the 'Bri-gung painting traditions,
see also Jackson 1996, pp. 338-343.
[back]
|
|
D.
Jackson 1996, p. 42, n. 50. [back]
|
|
Two
thangkas, apparently from this set,
were offered at Christies "to
benefit a Tibetan monastery in a Himalayan
Kingdom." See sale no. 9608 (March
21, 2001) lot no. 161 and 162. One
pictured Chos-kyi-nyin-byed (68 x
49.5 cm.) and the other, Dharma-dbang-phyug
(67.5 x 49). Though dated "ca.
1800" for the auction, the set
appears to be not from the Golok region
but from early-17th-century gTsang,
i.e. from Jo-nang itself. The size
is close to that of certain other
Jo-nang-pa thangkas of the period.
A larger portrait of Chos-kyi-nyin-byed
(80 x 54 cm.) survives in a private
collection, Cologne, which is stylistically
similar to some of the eighteenth-century
dPal-spungs sets. [back]
|
|
Jackson
1996, p. 341. The painter Yeshe Jamyang
said they might date to the time of
the 'Bri-gung abbot Chos-kyi-rgyal-po
(1335-1407), though he never saw them
except in photographs. [back]
|
|
See
Jackson 1996, p. 234ff. [back]
|
|
Yeshe
Jamyang, interviewed on September
9, 1995, at Leh, Ladakh, by Nyurla
Ngawang Tsering. Clare Harris 1999,
p. 68, has presented this listing
in translation or paraphrase, without
the original Tibetan wording.[back]
|
|
Yeshe
Jamyang, interviewed on September
9, 1995, at Leh, Ladakh, by Nyurla
Ngawang Tsering. Cf. Clare Harris
1997, p. 268.[back]
|
| |
Yeshe Jamyang explained that the style
of E district was the painting tradition
of the Lhasa government (lha sa'i
gzhung gi ri mo). [back]
|
| |
Wangchuk (dBang-phyug) of Ladakh (interview
Leh, 31 July 1977): dbus gi tshon
ni skya mda' 'dra// gtsang gi tshon
ni sa rub 'dra//). Wangchuk had studied
(in ca. the late 1960s or early 1970s)
under Dawa Pasang (Zla-ba-pa-sangs),
an old master of the Tashilhunpo tradition.
[back]
|
| |
Wangdrak, interview Rajpur, 1982.
Presented in D. Jackson 1996, p. 358
and note 821. [back]
|
top 
|
