Before attempting to evaluate Brass Standing Figure of a 1000-Armed Avalokitesvara with 11 Heads (Avalokitesvara), a critical theory suitable to the task at hand must be found to ensure a proper interpretation of the work. It is also necessary to understand the work before evaluating it so that in the evaluation the work's truths are neither neglected, nor exploited, nor distorted by the critic. An intentionalist theory of art, in which the artist's psychological states and processes involved in making the work are taken to be relevant to interpreting and understanding it, requires that the critic employ a base understanding of the history of the work in any evaluation, stipulating a suitable context in which we can understand and evaluate the Avalokitesvara. Such a theory can be found in Richard Wollheim's Criticism as Retrieval, in which Wollheim outlines his theory of retrieval, a strong intentionalist model: "criticism is retrieval. The task of criticism is the reconstruction of the creative process… The creative process reconstructed, or retrieval complete, the work is then open to understanding" (Wollheim 235). Created in 18th century Tibet (Quick 175), the Avalokitesvara can be criticized as a work of art intended to demonstrate the cultural and religious significance of the Buddhist deity Avalokitesvara, the figure depicted by the statue. By performing retrieval on the creative process, in which the finished Avalokitesvara plays only a small role, we can approach an understanding of a work of art whose origins are so different from our own that by any non-intentionalist critical theory, the work would be entirely misrepresented, and the evaluation would necessarily fail to incorporate the cultural and religious significance of Avalokitesvara.
Retrieval vs. Scrutiny
The theory of criticism as retrieval can be understood through its contrast with scrutiny, a popular opposing theory in which many objections to retrieval are found. Scrutiny is the confinement of criticism of a work to that which is apparent in the work. Similarly restricting himself to the part of the creative process which is ultimately realized in the work, Wollheim argues that "there is something that reconstruction of this part of the process can bring to light which scrutiny of the corresponding part of the work cannot" (Wollheim 238), and that retrieval, as an intentionalist theory, aims to provide an understanding of the work through reconstruction of the creative process, a series of events affected by conditions which include but are not limited to the intentions of the artist. This understanding is reached through "description profounder than scrutiny can provide" (Wollheim 238). Such description, which can include "background beliefs, conventions, …ideological or scientific world-pictures… systems of symbolism, [etcetera]" (Wollheim 241) of the artist, is an essential means of understanding an object as culturally distant as the Avalokitesvara.
The Importance of Cognitive Stock
Few critics would agree that knowledge of artistic theories involved in the creation of a work of art does not lend itself to an overall understanding and ultimately a better criticism of the work. In fact, the conceptual foundation on which a work of art is built is arguably its definitive feature. The critic must understand the theories and concepts, artistic and otherwise, composing the artist's "cognitive stock" (Wollheim 238) in order to realize the intentions of the artist, and to arrive at a valid criticism of the work. Wollheim's notion of cognitive stock is another illustrative point at which retrieval and scrutiny diverge, and it is a crucial component in any criticism of the Avalokitesvara, whose creator's hands were likely guided more by religious doctrine than by artistic principle. Ancient and modern writings alike lead us to believe that this is the case by providing us with rich explanations of Tibetan Buddhist art in terms of religious symbolism, while leaving us with very little critical material grounded in any predominately artistic traditions. Criticism as retrieval ensures that such non-artistic motivations are not ignored.
Cultural Significance of Avalokitesvara
The Avalokitesvara can be understood and criticized from an intentionalist perspective when, in performing criticism as retrieval, the critic understands that the work was intended to demonstrate key aspects of Tibetan culture by means of a strong cultural symbol, the Buddhist deity Avalokitesvara. An example of profound description that would enable a critic to better understand and criticize the Avalokitesvara beyond the provisions of scrutiny is that of the cultural significance of Avalokitesvara of Tibetan mythos.
Tibetan legend speaks of a time…when the land had just risen out of the ocean and no humans lived in Tibet. The Bodhisattava Avalokitesvara, seeking to benefit the beings of this world, decided to create the Tibetan race. (Byrd 22)
Avalokitesvara, compassionate in nature, came together with another deity, a fierce rock ogress, and their mythological progeny formed the clans of Tibet (Beyer 4). The people of Tibet proudly identify with this union of compassion and ferocity, and Tibet's history as both a peaceful Buddhist nation and a dominant warring force (Banerjee 16) can be seen as the manifestation of this dualism. Furthermore, in the century before the Avalokitesvara was created, the fifth Dalai Lama, or "Great Fifth" as he has come to be known, became the first Dalai Lama to lead a united Tibet after establishing a new government in 1642 (Novick 24). This led to a three hundred-year period of peace under the rule of successive Dalai Lamas, which fused Tibetan cultural identity with Lamaism, the belief that Tibet is to be ruled by the Dalai Lama (Novick 24). The Dalai Lama, a cultural, political, and religious icon of Tibet and representative of its people, is thought to be a reincarnation of Avalokitesvara (Kavearna 257).
Ignorant of Avalokitesvara's preeminent significance as the patron deity of Tibet, the critic cannot form a complete understanding of the creative process which gave rise to the Avalokitesvara because such a process includes "the many background beliefs, conventions, …ideological or scientific world-pictures, current systems of symbolism, [etcetera]" (Wollheim 241), or cognitive stock, belonging to an artist of 18th century Tibet. With this understanding, the critic sees that the artist successfully realized his intent to epitomize the ethos of Tibet by depicting a symbol as culturally resonant as Avalokitesvara. Without this understanding, the critic has no basis for a valid criticism of the work; all possible evaluation of a work is contextualized, either properly or improperly. Criticism is contextualized properly when it is contextualized in a valid context, and valid context must be retrieved.
Religious Significance and Dharma
In addition to serving as a strong cultural symbol, the Avalokitesvara was intended to represent and teach the traditions, teachings, and tenets of Tibetan Buddhism (Snellgrove 281). By conducting criticism as retrieval, the critic can discover what those traditions, teachings, and tenets were, what they meant to the artist, and how to identify them in the work.
[Tibetan Buddhism's] most forceful means of expression is precisely through its art, and it is in fact through this medium that Tibetans…gain most firsthand knowledge of their religion… There is no such thing as art for art's sake where art is primarily a religious medium. (Snellgrove 281)
The last part is key: "there is no such thing as art for art's sake where art is primarily a religious medium." In the transparent act of calling the Avalokitesvara "art," we recontextualize or transplant the work, robbing it of its inherent piety and appropriating our own set of cultural norms for use in criticizing the work. An understanding of the principles that governed production and appreciation of such works in 18th century Tibet allows us to circumvent this hegemony and the misguided criticism it entails. In Tibet, all artistic techniques and principles governing aesthetic appreciation are based on the instructions found in Buddhist texts on painting, sculpture, and many other art forms (Banerjee 24). These texts form part of Dharma, a term referring to the teachings of Buddha (Kelsang 1). Dharma is a Sanskrit word meaning "that which holds," as in "back from suffering, fears and dangers" (Kelsang 1). Dharma can be considered a way of life, a path to Enlightenment, or, as is most useful in criticism of the Avalokitesvara, an all-encompassing theory of Tibetan Buddhist art.
Whatever plans the Tibetans make, will be first tested out on the touchstone of Dharma, If they are assured it is right according to Dharma only then, will they begin it…if the intention is good the conduct will also be the same. (Banerjee 18)
Avalokitesvara is formally known as Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, signifying that Avalokitesvara has taken the Bodhisattva vows, in which one promises to practice generosity, moral discipline, patience, joyous effort, concentration and wisdom (Kelsang 128). These "six perfections" (Kelsang 128) are the central principles of Dharma. Understanding that the creator of the Avalokitesvara intended for the work to communicate these principles, the critic can evaluate the degree to which the artist was successful in achieving this goal; once we know these principles, we cannot help but recognize them in the Avalokitesvara, so we conclude that the artist was successful with respect to the intention of personifying the six perfections.
Iconographic Conventions
For a criticism of the more concrete details of the work, we can compare the Avalokitesvara with other works that share its image.
The appearance of bodhisattvas in art is based on the princely image of Shakyamuni before he became the Buddha. They wear the princely garb of India, jewelry, and long hair. They are easily distinguished from buddhas, who wear a monk's robe, no jewelry, and have short hair. (Stokstad 69)
After retrieving this rubric for bodhisattva imagery, we see that the Avalokitesvara, "[wearing] the princely garb of India, jewelry, and long hair," fits the image of the pre-enlightened Buddha, and can been considered a successful representation of a bodhisattva. When sequestered in a display case in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, the Avalokitesvara forfeits the majority of its original contextual attributes. If a critic learns that the spiritual power of figures depicted in Buddhist art is suggested by "large size in comparison with…surrounding figures," (Stokstad 73) a better representation of the work's original mode of display can be constructed in the mind of the critic, allowing for a better understanding of the work's potential, and, in turn, a better criticism. In other words, if the Avalokitesvara were originally the largest statue in a Tibetan monastery, and it were on display at above eye-level, it would be better able to realize its potential for expressing spiritual power by virtue of its greater relative magnitude. By conducting criticism as retrieval, we approach understanding the Avalokitesvara as its creator intended it to be understood.
Conclusion
Wollheim's criticism as retrieval, an intentionalist theory of art, shows us that many factors, in addition to psychological states and processes of the artist, are involved in creating the work, and are therefore relevant to understanding and interpreting it. These factors, taken together, are the creative process that gave rise to the work, which, as conceived by Wollheim, is a phenomenon with greater depth and breadth than most critical theories recognize. Once this process is retrieved or reconstructed, the work is open to criticism (Wollheim 235). The inclusiveness of this concept of the creative process allows us to move beyond the immediate form of the Avalokitesvara to an understanding of the cultural, religious, and categorical intentions of the work's creator, and, ultimately, a sound criticism of the Avalokitesvara as a successful work of art.
