Tendances de l'Art Khmer | Trends in Khmer Art

Written in 1952, when the National Museum of Cambodia was still known as the Musée Albert-Sarrault — of which the author was then Chief-Curator, this luminous study of 24 Khmer sculpture masterpieces follows the principles and datation system established by art historian Philippe Stern, the author’s mentor. 

After briefly depicting the major figures of the Hinduist pantheon in their Khmer representations, the study defines the major trends of Khmer Buddhist art: ​“Au milieu du panthéon mahâyâniste, ce sont les images
de Lokeçvara, le Bodhisattva de Compassion, et de la Prajñâpâramitâ ou Târâ, la « Perfection de Sagesse » qui sont, de loin, les plus nombreuses. Les unes et les autres sont vêtues comme les divinités hindouistes mais elles portent, en avant de leur chignon, la figurine d’un Buddha assis en méditation. Lokeçvara est, de préférence, représenté avec quatre bras, tenant le flacon, le livre, le rosaire et le bouton de lotus ; mais il peut avoir aussi huit bras ; son corps, sa chevelure même, sont alors recouverts d’une multitude de petites images de Buddha et de divinités que le Bodhisattva est censé irradier pour le salut des êtres. Târâ né possède, tout au moins dans l’art lapidaire, que deux bras, tenant le livre et le bouton de lotus. Les divinités tantriques, à bras et têtes multiples, n’apparaissent pas dans la statuaire proprement dite mais les bronzes et certaines stèles en montrent quelques rares exemples.” [“At the center of the pantheon, the images of Lokesvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, and of Prajñâpâramitâ or Târâ, the ​“Perfection of Wisdom”, are, by far, the most numerous. Both are dressed like Hindu deities but they wear, in front of their bun, a small figurine of Buddha seated in meditation. Lokesvara is preferably represented with four arms, holding the flask, the book, the rosary and the lotus bud; but he can also have eight arms; his body, his hair even, are then covered with a multitude of small images of Buddha and deities that the Bodhisattva is supposed to radiate for the salvation of beings. Tara has, at least in lapidary art, only two arms, holding the book and the lotus bud. Tantric deities, with multiple arms and heads, do not appear in the actual statuary, but the bronzes and certain stelae show a few rare examples.”]

As for the Khmer statuary style itself, the author notes that ​“dès 1875, le comte de Croizier écrivait : ​‘La statuaire chez les Khmers a été poussée à un haut degré de perfection. Les types reproduits sont des types indigènes : l’expression des figures est souriante et douce, le caractère en est hiératique. Même quand les personnages
sont en mouvement, les formes musculaires né sont pas accusées…Leurs oeuvres ont une originalité incontestable et il est impossible de confondre les statues de l’Inde avec celles qu’on retrouve dans les temples anciens du Cambodge.’ ” [​“As early as 1875, Comte de Croizier wrote: ​‘Statuary among the Khmers has been brought to a high degree of perfection. The types reproduced are native, the facial expressions smiling and gentle, the character hieratic. Even when the figures are in motion, the muscular forms are not marked… Their works have an undeniable originality and it is impossible to confuse the statues of India with those found in ancient temples of Cambodia.‘”]

ADB Input:

Compare with Philip S. Rawson’s The art of Southeast Asia; Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Burma, Java, Bali (Praeger, New York, 1967, p 18): ​“Most interesting of all, there apparently existed a fairly advanced native artistic tradition in Cambodia and Cochin China [previous to Indian influences, EN] , probably in perishable materials. For when the earliest versions in stone of Indian prototypes were made there, they were far from being mere copies, or even transcriptions. The sculptures of Indian icons produced in Cambodia during the sixth to the eighth centuries ad are masterpieces, monumental, subtle, highly sophisticated, mature in style and unrivalled for sheer beauty anywhere in India. It is obvious that their style is not purely Indian ; there are elements in it which were never created by Indian sculptors in India, and which must only be called local. It is not possible to say whence this style sprang. It must have developed in the region. Attempts to identify it exactly with a specific local Indian style have failed, though certain characteristics suggest links with western rather than eastern India. It cannot have been imported, fully fledged, and there may yet be further discoveries about its evolution to be made.”

The masterpieces here considered and commented are:

1) VISHNU (B‑30, 18) Schiste (height : 2 m. 70), Phnom Dà (Takeo), first half of 6^th century

2) STANDING BUDDHA (B‑10, 14) Sandstone (h: 1 m. 25), Wat Romlok (Prei Krabas, Takéo), 6 – 7^th centuries

3) KALKYAVATARA (avatar of Vishnu) (V‑31, 2) Sandstone (h: 1 m. 35), found near Kuk Trap village (Kandal), 6 – 7^th centuries

4) VISHNU (B‑30, 15) Sandstone (h: 1 m. 85), found at Tûol Dai Buon (Pearang, Prei Veng),7^th century

5) FEMALE DEITY (B‑71, 1) Sandstone (h: 1 m. 27), Koh Krieng (Kompong Cham), 7^th century