'avid Jackson http://www.bimalayanart.orglexbibitsldavidldavidj.

html

... Exhibit!;

by David Jackson Page rn (I] @)

Although the chronology of the founders of the main schools of Tibetan Buddhist painting is now
established beyond dispute' and a few examples of most schools can now be identified, the stylistic
classification of actual paintings continues to vex historians of Tibetan art. This conundrum was once
worse, so we can be grateful for whatever progress has been made. Part of the problem may derive from
the oversimplified classification scheme we have inherited from the Tibetan authorities, according to
which there are only three main later schools: 1. sMan-ris, 2. mKhyen-ris, and 3.sGar-bris, the second of
which is rare. Traditional authorities do subdivide the two most important schools, distinguishing an old
from new sMan-ris, treating the New sMan-ris of Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho almost as a separate school. In
the same way, they sometimes differentiate between old and new sGar-bris, the "new" referring to styles
Si-tu Pan-chen patronized in eighteenth-century Khams. Yet even with such additional refinements, one
suspects that the styles were more numerous and their relations more complex.

One of the bravest recent attempts to apply the traditional styles is Rhie and Thurman's catalogue of the
Rubin collection, a book to which my sole contribution was an independent chapter. Here I will try to
clarify a few points in that catalogue, while proposing some further stylistic identifications. I offer these
remarks as a recent footnote to the study of Tibetan painting styles that E. Gene Smith pioneered thirty
years ago through his introduction to Kong-sprurs encyclopedia..

The Main Tibetan Styles

The "Tibetan styles 11 (bod bris) that took hold after the sMan-thang-pa revolution in the mid-fifteenth
century can be classified:

1. sMan-ris
a. Old sMan-ris
i. Modern Successors to the Old sMan-ris in dBus: The E-bris
and "Gelukpa International School"
ii. Successors to the old sMan-ris in western gTsang (Shel-dkar, etc.)'
b. New sMan-ris
i. New sMan-ris of Tashilhunpo, forerunner to the gTsang-ris
ii. New sMan-ris in eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Khams: A Hybrid sMan-ris/sGar-bris
2. mKhyen-ris
a. Early mKbyen-ris of mKhyen-brtse and Disciples
b. The Revival of the mKhyen-ris by the Fifth Dalai Lama
c. A mKhyen-ris Branch Surviving at IBri-gung
3. sGar-bris
a. Early sGar-bris
b. Later sGar-bris, Si-tuls Influence
4. Regional Styles
a. dBus-ris (i.e., E-ris, I.a.i. above)
b. gTsang-ris (1.b.i. above)

von 7 10.12.2006 16:22

avid Jackson http://www.bimalayanart.orglexhibits/davidldavidj.html

c. Khams-ris (mainly 3.b. and l.b.ii above)

d. Amdo bris (regional variant of l.a.i?)
e. Ching Dynasty Court Art (China)

Early Indian-Influe~ced Styles

."!I!!"'!!II• • These categories leave out the previous~ "pre-Tibetan" painting styles, most of
which could be classified under the traditional categories of either "East-[Indian]
painting" (shar bris) or "Newar painting" (bal bris). An example of Tibetan
"East-[Indian] painting" would be the sTag-lung paintings, such as catalogue no.
102 (Ru 319). It is wrong (cf. p. 315), to assert that sTag-lung painted lineages
usually include Atisha, for often they do not (Rbie and Thurman 1996, no. 203, is
not typical of the corpus). In addition, if the main Phyag-chen lineage is shown
(as is usual), there is no need to qualify the presence of Phag-mo-gru-pa with a
"perhaps." Phag-mo-gru-pa was sTag-lung-thang-pa's main master and was
crucial to his tradition.

For later Tibetans, "Newar painting" (hal bris) included not only paintings by
Newar artists or their early Tibetan imitators, but also old-fashioned Tibetan styles
that resisted the inflow of Chinese art and aesthetic taste even as late as the
sixteenth century. One assumes the portrait of Virupa, no. 83 (Ru 641), p. 280, is
an example of true fourteenth-century Bal-ris, but the identification of the lay
master above as bSod-nams-rtse-mo is doubtful. He is more likely either Sa-skya
Pandita's guru rJe-btsun Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan or his grandfather, Sa-chen.

Regarding the later period of true Newar-style (Hal-ris) painting, Rhie mentions,
p. 55, r'Jangpukpa Kunga Lekpa" (Byang-phug-pa Kun-dga'-legs-pa) as a guru of Tsongkhapa. (His name
was omitted from the index.) In fact, he was a master who flourished in gTsang in the fust half of the
fifteenth century. The Bal-ris paintings he commissioned thus probably did not belong to the fourteenth
century.

Figure 13 cited by Rhie on p. 54 (from Liu I-se 1957, fig. 18) is unlikely to have been Sa-skya Pandita. This
iconography with such hand gestures and hand-held objects is not otherwise attested for Sa-pan. One also
wonders whether the attribution (Rhie 1999, p. 55; Liu 1957, figs. 22 and 24) of IBri-gung tbangkas to the
late fourteenth or early fifteenth century is not too early.

von7 10.12.2006 16:22

 http://www.himalayanart.org!exhibitsldavidldavidj.html
avid Jackson

':~" '~,,\i"~ATi\'r~;
~.. '.;-:~;~'~.... '" ;' With the portraits "Sakya Lama,1t no. 86 [=Ngor abbot Sangs-rgyas-seng-ge
h~ ~: "ff:i! "~,
1504-1569, 11th abbotj, and "Master Buddhashri." no. 87 (Ru 269), p. 29lf., we
',~,~" :.. ; come to later Tibetan continuations of the Bal-ris. Buddhashri is an important
',~~~j"~~ . / : . Tibetan master who transmitted the Lam 'bras to Ngor-chen Kun-dga'-bzang-po
.'.'W'~ .1.,· (1382-1456) in the early fifteenth century. The Lha-mchog-seng-ge of the
.:i~': _,.C: .,.'~ inscription is the ninth Ngor abbot rGyal-ba Lha-mchog-seng-ge (1468-1535,
'7:';. , ~ , : abbatial tenure 1516-1534) with this distinctive name who commissioned the

,~"'.:::;.~,~,,':)Ii'; work.

The main figure Buddhasbri appears probably in his role as lineage master of the
Sa-skya-pa (Ngor-pa) Lam 'bras instructions. (He is shown wearing special Tibetan
monastic garb,. so any speculation about his being an Indian pundit is
iconographically impossible). Compare his appearance in the Lam 'bras lineages in
no. 189 (Ru352) p. 468f. The Indian pandita named Buddhashri referred to by Rhie
and Thurman (p. 291) played no known role in any later Tibetan school. '

r;;==~==:- The portrayal of three "Sakya lamas,1I no. 90 (Ru 63), p. 296, is
also stylistically conservative for the sixteenth century. Here
the main figure at top center identified as Se-slon Kun-rig (a lay
master) can only be his ordained disciple Zhang-ston Chos-'bar, who preceded Sa-chen
in this Lam 'bras lineage. It is anachronistic to call the ftrst two masters" Sakya II

lamas, though their lineages, it is true, were later mainly

ro~~~ooooree;t transmitted by Sa-chen and his successors.

The portrayal of Great Adept Avadhutipa, no. 44 (Ru 41), p.

219f., illustrates the penetration of Chinese styles by the
seventeenth or eighteenth century in paintings of the Sa-skya-pa school. A vadhutipa
appears here as a lineage master of the Lam 'bras instructions.

"Ganden Renaissance" or tlMing-Court-lnspired Revolution"?

Bob Thurman in his introductory essay (p. 31ff.) hypothesizes the existence of a
"Ganden Renaissance" mass movement in Tibetan religious culture from ca. 1400 to the 164Os. .' Such a
"Ganden Renaissance" is, to my knowledge, nowhere attested in the corpus of accessible Tibetan histOrical
writings. Even if Western historians or Tibetologists might have overlooked it, how could something of
such scope and significance have escaped the notice of the historically well-informed scholars from Tibet?

Thurman's art-historian co-author, M. Rhie, did not adopt the "Ganden renaissance" as a period or
descriptive category in her own essays or descriptions, perhaps because it is not a coherent period or
development. The period in question overlaps two major art-historical epochs, starting (ca. 1400) in the
pre-sMan-thang-pa, heavily Indian-influenced, styles (Bal-ris).lt includes the transitional styles of the
Gyantse stupa (1430s-1440s), undergoes the sMan-thang-pa revolution (from the 14508 or 1460s), and ends
in a Sinicized style of the later sMan-ris (mid to late seventeenth century).

Thurman's thesis is that Tsong-kha-pa's visions of Ganden (Tushita) heaven in ca. 1400 triggered a massive
religious and artistic renaissance in Tibet during the two and a half centuries that followed. He proposes
that a "mass movement" took place that also embraced the other main schools of Tibetan Buddhism, thus
denying that he is describing essentially just the Gelukpa school's foundation and its eventual winning of

von7 10.12.2006 16:22

avid Jackson http://www.himalayanart.orglexhibits/davidldavidj.html

political supremacy through a military imposition of a theocracy in the 1640s. One wonders what role the
banning of the Gelukpa monks from the Lhasa prayer festival for the rrrst two decades of the sixteenth
century or the driving of the Sera and Drepung monks from their monasteries in 1618 would have played in
this "mass movement," which ended only in the 1640s when the strongest rival schools were forcibly
suppressed--through many confiscations and forced conversions of monasteries--and the main political
rivals were eliminated through Mongol-led wars.

Thurman reconstructs in a visionary or intuitive way, without citing historical or art-historical evidence. His
sole Tibetan source is one later hagiography of Tsong-kha-pa cited as "rGyal-dbang Chos-rje" in the
bibliography. Thurman proposes a visionary mechanism for artistic developments (p. 36): "... their
enlightenments naturally became the basis for a widespread artistic renaissance, as artists of liberated
creati vity were moved to articulate their visions to a wider world." This is internally consistent with one of
the ke~ identifying characteristics he ascribes to the art: "presence of visionary clarity."

The renaissance in the West gave rise to neoclassical styles of art and architecture through the rediscovery
of the classical (Greek and Roman) models. For a renaissance analogy to hold in Tibet, one would expect a
kind of Indian Buddhist neoclassicism in Tibetan art of the fifteenth century. Thurman knows this and
proposes (p. 36): "In the Tibetan case, the new ideas were the rediscovery ... of the old Indian ideals of
Buddhist humanism." In fact, Tibetan aesthetic taste did not experience neoclassicism. It did just the
opposite, veering away from the old Indian decorative elements and adopting Chinese art for the depiction
of everything except the divine figures themselves. This radical change was the stylistic "revolution" (not
revival) led by the Tibetan painters sMan-thang-pa and mKhyen-brtse.

The ultimate impulse for sMan-thang-pa's stylistic change in ca. 1450 is not to be sought in the insights or
activities of any Tibetan religious master of ca. 1400, but in the generosity and taste of the Ming imperial
court in the next decade. The Ming YongIe emperor (reigned 1403-1424), by commissioning exquisite
Buddhist artworks arid offering them to the leading lamaS of Tibet (including one of Tsong-kha-pa's top
disciples) whom he invited to his court, sowed the seeds for the coming revolution in Tibetan religious
aesthetic taste. For it was Ming Buddhist masterpiece paintings that sMan-bla-don-grub and
mKhyen-brtse took, about four decades later, as their main sources of inspiration.

Delayed Penetration of Chinese Styles

The penetration of Chinese landscapes into the backgrounds of paintings that began in the mid-fifteenth
century (under the delayed inspiration of Ming-court Chinese Buddhist art) took a long time to replace the
older styles completely in central Tibet. They were adopted at first through the spread of various more or
less Tibetanized versions of the sMan-ris, and to a lesser degree, through the mKhyen -ris. Then, from the
mid-sixteenth century on, other Chinese models penetrated via the sGar-bris.

Chinese landscapes were not assimilated everywhere at the same speed. Rhie correctly notes that they
"reached universal acceptance as settings for deities only from the seventeenth century." Even in the
seventeenth century, some connoisseurs such as the Fifth Dalai Lama commissioned r1copies" of old art,
thus producing paintings without such backgrounds.

One interesting phenomenon documented by the Rubin collection is the conservative resistance that
continued well into the sixteenth century, both in Sa-skya-pa art (where one would have expected it, for
example at Ngor) and in paintings of the Karma bKar-brgyud-pa. I refer to six such paintings:

von7 10.12.2006 16:22

avid Jackson http://www.hirnalayanart.orglexhibitsldavidldavidj.html

No. 85 (Ru 457), "frrst half of the 16th century"

No. 86 (Ru 493), "mid 16th century"
No. 89 (Ru 162), "ca. 1500"
Nos. 103-105 (Ru 562, 561 and 536), "mid 16th century"

~~~~~,1l~.•. Concerning painting no. 103 (Ru 562), p. 317f., the gSang-'dus Rim-Inga lineage is
not the lineage of the whole set, which portrays as main figures of each tbangka two
lineage lamas of the Phyag-chen (Zung Jug). The gSang-'dus Rim-Inga is the minor
lineage portrayed in only one tbangka (Ru 560).

When assessing the penetration of Chinese styles (Rbie 1999, p. 56ff.), the Sixteen
~Gt~~t.1. Arhats (or Sixteen Elders, gnas brtan bcu drug) should be treated as a special subject.
. Since this cycle originated from China, by· definition it entailed more Chinese
influence. One can get a more accurate idea of the extent to
which Chinese ·styles have penetrated a given Tibetan school
by looking at the backgrounds of iconographic subjects that had no special link with
China.

'fShakyamuni Buddha with Life-scenes" (catalogue no. 13, Ru 264, p. 159f.), is

another such iconographic subject that originated from China: a depiction of a
Chinese "Hundred Deeds of the Buddha" (rgya mdzad). ' . This iconographic cycle,
too, should eventually be gathered and investigated as a group. Rhie's description of
no. 13 mentions virtually all styles, even the Tenth Karma-pa; however, the painting
seems to be by a sMan-ris artist.

1. sMan-ris

108.i. Modem Successors to the Old sMan-ris in dBos Province:

The So-called "Gelukpa International School" and the E-ris

. von 7 10.12.2006 16:22

avid Jackson http://www.himalayanart.orglexhibitsldavidldavidj.html

In the thangka of "Guru Drakpochey and the Between-State Deities," no. 179 (557), p. 445f., the clouds are
exactly those of a typical sMan-ris of dBus province, central Tibet, of the late nineteenth or early twentieth
century. Note the repeated shape of the clouds and their unshaded outer edges. There is no reason to
attribute this painting to Eastern Tibet.

~t:f&iIiti3i~~~;a By contrast, "Vaishravana and the Eight Troll Generals/' no. 58 (Ru 123 is now
90130), p. 238f., is by no means a typical Lhasa sMan-ris of ca. 1900. which
abhorred solid dark-blue skies and would never outline clouds with indigo. There is
little to support the hypothesis (p. 238), "possibly by an artist working in Lhasa who
combined elements of the traditional New,Menri and Karma Gardri styles."

The sMan-ris commonly practiced by artists of dBus province was not necessarily the
high art of the Dalai Lama's court artists, though the traditions may have overlapped
at times. The painting of Shakyamuni with Avadana legends, no. 14 (Ru 494), p.
_ ........................iiiiiI 159ff., is attributed to the refined New sMan-ris style of the
Lhasa worksbops ca. 1900. This depiction of certain episodes
from Kshemendra's work is based on sNar-thang blocks, and at
first glance it would seem to be a rme gTsang-bris--note the very dark sky above and
the shading of clouds. It may be possible in due course to differentiate this possibly
"Tashilhunpo court ~ ca. 1900 [1]" from "Lhasa court ~ ca. 1900," or to verify
Rbiets Lhasa supposition. I admit that the style of no. 14 is similar to Jackson 1996,
pI. 67, identified by me as in a high court style of nineteenth-century Lhasa. '

""""-'~~,"""~"', In "the Fourth Dalai Lama and some previous incamations~1I (~:!.
"".t.eI;u,··,,-'1,' no. 128 (Ru 380), p. 357f., the main figure is one of the Dalai Lamas, whose glorious
spiritual pedigree the thangka portrays. The,painting itself probably dates to the mid-
or late-seventeenth century and not the eighteenth or nineteenth century. This
treatment of clouds as dominating landscape elements is unusual but not impossible
for the late seventeenth century. Such a trulku-lineage portrait can hardly be much
later than the last historical figure portrayed. Could the vase in '
the central figure's left hand symbolize a prayer for his long
life, as it so clearly does for the facing portrait of the Fifth
Dalai Lama (cat. no. 129, Ru 506)1 It is understandable that
Rhie and Thurman had trouble identifying the main figure. From an iconographical
and structural standpoint, one would expect the frrst four Dalai Lamas below, but
instead one finds:

221 Central Figure

211

18 19

20

Inscriptions:
18. Chos rgyal 'phags pa
19. dGe 'dun grub pa [the First Dalai Lama]
20. bSod nams rgya [mtsho] [the Third Dalai Lama]

ivan7 10.12.2006 16:22

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 Oelukpa monasteries throughout Tibet, and an international style, spreading also to
Gelukpa establishments of Mongolia and China. She describes this as Ita 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 Tashilbunpo, and not the dBus-ris.
The typical dBus-ris of the nineteenth and early twentieth century was a continuation of the
old sMan-ris (sMan-mying), for which I presented some evidence in a previous study.

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.
The well-known modem artist and authority bsTan-pa-rab-brtan informed me that his family,
the Kba-dog Lbo-rna, 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.. Tsbe-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. Thus these
painters came from E and embodied an E-bris hereditary lineage that has continued down to
bsTan-pa-rab-brtan himself.

l.b.i. New sMan-rls of Tasbiihunpo, 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 tbangkas sponsored by
the Fifth Dalai Lama and his teacher the Pan-chen Lama...tt 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 TasbiJhunpo.

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 Tashilbunpo of the second half of the
seventeenth century or early eighteenth century. There is no need to add
1t
"or Eastern Tibet to the description.
mm~IZF'":~"'-'='91I 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~ntury)
. .~~~~.. successor to Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsbo's ttNew sMan-ris. I cannot detect II

.,.R~ ..:.:-.>~, ,::." ..;.LiIt;':l:'iilI;~ any elements of the Kanna sOar-bris modifying it.

I also agree that the portrayal of Tsongkhapa at the

,'.l\Il"•..,#f''':!'/IIi."I

center of a Gelukpa refuge tree, no. 191 (Ru 571), p.

473, is probably Tashilhunpo art by a follower of
Chos-dbyings-Ido-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.bJi. 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
II t

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 Kbams-bris or New sMan--ris of Khams. Its connection with
~~:,,:\::,; the New sMan-ris of gTsang remains unknoWD.

The composition of no. 38 seems to derive from an original

--..~. "'" commissioned or planned by Si-tu Pan-c.ben: note the architectuml
IIr~§f~[~"f§ details. But its use of deep blues and greens in the landscape is not
"iii~~BI 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.

2. mKbyen-ris

2.8. Early mKhyen-ris of mKhyen-brtse and Disdp)es

The mKhyen-ris is a rare style. Regarding its founder, mKhyen-brtse of Oong-dkar, Rhie and
Thurman (1999, pp. 31,; 74, D. 52; 497; etc.) continue to use the mistaken name "Kbyentse
Wangcbuk. The school's founder was actually called mKhyen-brtse Chen-mo ("Chen-mo"
tI

was his title as master artist and overseer of large projects). No Tibetan source calls him
mKhyen-brtse-dbang-pbyug, and I have tried to clarify the confusion of mKhyen-brtse-chen-
mo with Tsbar-chents great disciple mKbyen- brtse-dbang-phyugt to correct the erroneous
suggestion of E. O. Smith 1970. No written source links mKbyen-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-mying artists and painted at Gyantse
alongside sMan-tbang-pa.

2.b. The Revival of the mKhyen-ris by the Fifth Dalai Lama and Others in Seventeenth-
Century
Central Tibet

nGuru Rinpoche as Suryaprabba," no. 61 (Ru 675), p. 246f., is, I

agree,
an example of the mKhyen-ris. It is probably also seventeenth centwy.
1fI'!k!••:!F"'~ But it is not from eastern Tibet In uncertain cases, it would be better to
list neither provenance rather than both.

"Shakyamuni,'t no. 2 (Ru 39), p. 138, is said to be

mKhyen-ris from eastern Tibet, but this is
unlikely. No lineage of mKbyen-ris is recorded to
have reached Khams. (A mKhyen-ris attribution
for the m:hat set., nos. 24-27, is much less certain.)

2.c. A mKhyen-ris BraDCh Surviving at from the Late Seventeenth

Century

~~. -:':';1" ::::.: ~~:c ~ ..:, The 'B~-gung abbatial history by bsTan~'dzin- .
:i:'~'~Jf~~'~;~~~ t~ti~j padma'l-rgyal-mtshan (1770-1~26), ~ pamter a~d authonty on art., records
"l~l' ,'~"I;I !f;~"'" that a branch of the mKhyen-ns survived at 'Bn-gung from the late
~Jt~ 11":
,.~.r.l:..~r~:i::h.
~~:\'i.l:J seventeenth century onward. "Padmasambbava Refuge Host Field Tree,"
no. 193 (~~ 413), p. 476f., seems to be a lat~rpainting from ~s 'Bri-
}l~': . ~ ••' :Ji''''·ie .~ gung tradition and does not need to be classified as "Eastern Tibetan. n
1'~H~;"tI;.~~~~t.; Though not in a typical sMan-ris style of dBus, the painting does come
•.~\:.!. "'':;'-;1;:. from central Tibet and has a 'Bri-gung subject matter. The attribution (p.
:';1.\ >;~. ~~ 477) "non-sectarian" is problematic; is it not a refuge tree for a rNying-ma
• • < '. ' tradition practiced among the tBri-gung-pa? The inscriptions identify
masters of the 'Bri-gung tradition.

Incidentally, no. 113 (Ru 362), called" A Drigung Kagyu Lama, It is in

fact a 'Bmg-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
wr;~~~~;mJ were followers of the Karma bKa'-brgyud in Khams and Amdo. But
Kanna-sgar-bris painters (like Karma bKa'-brgyud monasteries) were
unknown in Amdo.

The main figure in itA Lama," no. 132 (Ru 418)t p. 363ff., is not a dGe-
lugs-pa lama. He is the 12th-century Dwags-po bKa'-brgyud master
sOom-chung Shes-rab-byang-chub, nephew of sOam-po-pa (1079-1153)
and younger brother of sOom-pa Tshul-kbrims-snying-po (1116-1169).
This painting is from a series of bKa t -brgyud-pa masters and may date to
the late sixteenth or first half of the seventeenth centuIy~ 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 nam pa
4. gcung gregs mdzes
5. sgom zhi mdzes

sOom-cbung Sbes-rab-byang-cbub 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 oftbe dPal-spungs Si-tu spml-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 An undated series of 'Bri-gung masters
preserved in Limi in the northwestern borderlands of Nepal may also be this old.

A major difference between this painting (no. 132) and the portraits of Pan-chen Lama
successive rebirths attnDuted by me to Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho is the positioning of the
main figure here on the central axis. The composition in no. 132 is balanced and its central
figuret relatively small.

The portrait of the Ninth Kanna-pa dBang-pbyug-rdo-rje (no. 106, Ru

163, p. 321f.) should be considered as probably early Kanna sOar-bris,
but it should not be automatically attributed to Khams. It could also
have come from central TibeL Nam-mkha'-bkra-shis, founder of the
sOar-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 17308 onwar~ 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 knoWD, and more continue to appear.

A noteworthy example of the style is the portrait of a then still unidentified

.' "Sbamar Lama," p. 87, plate 4. The mid- or late-eighteenth-century dating
..' ~ I proposed for this thangka agrees with the identity of the main
.··.· •.".'L',.,,"

--~~~. figure I have since been able to establish. His facial features and band
:..\lWl.:cy ....'''..

........, ....,,-'''-.'. gestures identify him as the Tenth Zbwa-dmar, Mi-pbam Chos-grub-rgya-
.' ~~'~>~:.~; mtsho (1742-1792).

'. ~f.iL·' '~'i<! By contras~ the dPal-ldao-lha-mo of the Oelukpa tradition t no. 146 (Ru
/, :.:' "" '., -. 179), p. 386f., is not done in a Si-tn 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 l.a.i1)

(To this one might add styles from outside Tibet proper, such as: e. Ching Dynasty Court an
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 'Dri-gung tradition who

originally came from sNur-Ia in Ladakh, repeated a traditional list of six regional or local
styles:
[1] Gyari. [rgya lis], the painting school of China
[2] Kbamri [khams ris], the painting school of Kbams
[3] Driri ['bri ris], the painting school of Drigung ['Bri-gung in northern dBus province]
[4] Tsuri [mtsbur ris], the painting school of Tsmpu [mTsbur-pbu monastery in northeast
dBus]
[5] Eri [e rls], the painting school ofE district [in southeast dBus province]
[6] Tsangri [gtsang ris], the painting school of Tsang province [particularly at Tasbilhunpo]

Often painters differentiated regional styles on the basis of the relative lightness or darkness
of their overall color schemes. Ye-shes-]am-dbyangs, for instance, repeated four traditional
descriptions of painting schools:
[1] uChinese style was like a rainbow in the sky" (rgya bris nam mkha'i 5a' tshon 'dra).
[2] ItThe painting school from Khams was like the dusk of evening" (khams ris muo pa rub pa
'dra).
[3) "The style ofE district is like the dawn" (e bris nam mkba' Iangs pa tdra).
[4] nThe painting school from Drigung is like after sunrise" ('bri bris nyi rna 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 bas 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
ttpaler" (skya ba), like after sunrise.

In the above list, UKhams 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 sucb nineteenth-century painters as Chab-mdo
Phnr-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).

Wangcbnk (dBang-pbyug) 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:
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-twentietb-centuty Lhasa style (here referring primarily to an Old sMan-
ris, the E-ris) was overall much lighter tban the gTsang style of Tashilbunpo (the New sMan-
ris). For the coloration of clouds, its artists used only blue and green, whereas red- and
orange-tioged clouds were also possibilities for Tashilhunpo artists. Lhasa artists preferred
perfectly balanced compositions, while Tashilbunpo 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-loga 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 tbe two outside ones.
 ,'1

"

'i

"'"
"

I-
I

!
I \'! .
I
t ,

"

j
!
i

,-J' ,I ~ .
~----
.. ~- --.-~-'-~

. ....; ..

'~ J -

:-...

.-

Ii

.... ~.. --

," j,
David Jackson http://www.himalayanartorglexhibitsldavidldavidj3t.html

JII Himalayan Art .,,; ExhibIt!;

Pa.inli ng 'styles in the Ru.bin (.~fle't illn:

rden.tlflcatlc)tu and Clarificatwtu by David Jackson Page[] ~ @]

4.b. gTsang-brJs

One of the recent styles that should not be too difficult to document is that of gTsang, successors to the
New sMan-ris of Chos-dbyings-rgya-mtsho especially at Tashilhunpo. Two great painters of this school
f
have published painting manuals f including color illustrations.,-: , Some typical earlier examples have also
been published from Ladakbi collections. (Most dGe-Iugs-pa monks from Ladakh who received a higher
scholastic training did so at Tashilhunpo, their mother monastery, and this gave rise to other cultural links.)

The painter Phuntsok Sangpo (Phun-tshogs-bzang-po), one of the outstanding gTsang-bris proponents of the
last generation, enumerated three styles--dBus-bris, gTsang-bris and Khams-bris-stressing the need for
"1
each style to retain its distinct identity." His recently published painting manual makes clear the richness
and complexity of the gTsang-bris tradition, within which three distinct traditions could be discemed:
1. The tradition of Bro-khyung.·~ ':: This tradition possessed slightly more rocky crags and streams, but
relatively fewer clouds and flowers.
2. The tradition of Rigs-bzang-Iags, the master painter of sKyid-bde-shar. This was basically a gTsang-style,
to which certain excellent elements from Chinese painting (rgya bris) had been added.
3. The tradition of Phuntsok Sangpo's teacher, bSod-nams-stobs..rgyas, in which crags, streams, clouds and
flowers were widely depicted. The colors were applied intensely, and the bodily proportions were
authentic." ::;

Phuntsok Sangpo studied thirteen years under bSod-nams-stobs-rgyas, youngest son of the famous
gTsang-bris painting master dBu-chen 'Jigs-med-Iags. 'Jigs-med-lags also had two older sons
(Phun-tshogs-dbang-rgyal and sPen-pa-rgyal-po), and he participated in the painting of murals during the
renovation of the Jo-khang in Lhasa in the time of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. 'Jigs-med-lags's teacher was
the renowned painter Blo-bzang-dpal-'byor, a monk painter of Tashilhunpo who was the disciple of
dBu--chen Grags-pa-chos-'phel. Orags-pa-chos",'phel, in turn, painted tbangkas for a previous incarnation of
the Pan--chen Rinpoche [in ca. the mid to late nineteenth century]. :~'f

Phuntsok Sangpo participated in 1945 in the renovation of the Sa-skya l.J1a-khang..chen-mo, for which about
eighty painters were summoned from other parts of gTsang, including sTod [Shel-dkar, etc., in western
gTsang], Lba-rtse/ 5 Bo-dong and rTse--gdong. The rTse-gdong Lha-bris dBu-chen dBang..'dud-lags, chief
overseer of painting in the projectJ remarked at the time the purity and authenticity of Phuntsok Sangpo's
gTsang-bris style.·!':

gTsang..bris painters had a fondness for asymmetrical compositions. Their landscapes commonly included
snow-capped peaks on one side (which were rarely painting in the dBus..bris), and they had a special way of
shading clouds in the sky and clinging to the tops of hillsides (cat. nos. 14 and 131). Note also the use of
pink clouds in both.;;"

4.c. Khams-bris

1 von 6 10.12.2006 16:24

David Jackson http://www.bimaJayaoartorglexhibitsidavidldavidj3t.html

In recent centuries no single style eqjoyed a monopoly over the whole of Khams. Instead, several styles
coexisted, of which two were more typically Khams-pa or "eastern": 1. the sGar-bris (3.b, above) and 2. the
Khams-bris, a sManlsGar hybrid (l.h.li, above). In both of these, a stronger Chinese influence via the
sGar-bris is obvious in comparison with the central-Tibetan sMan-ris styles, old or new. In addition, some
painters in Khams worked in varieties of a third tradition: 3. sMan..ris styles that remained closer to those of
dB us province.

Sometimes the three styles coexisted not only in the same Khams district but even in the same painter. The
painter Blo-bzang-jam-dbyangs (b. 1929) from Re-sgang village of Cba-phreng district in southeast Khams,
for example, stated that in his homeland three painting styles were followed:
1. sMan-ris (close to that of dBus in central Tibet)
2. Khams-bris (the hybrid Khams style)
3. Karma-sgar-bris
He claimed he could paint in all three.
Similarly, Namgyal O. Ronge in his article on art and style in Tibet published in 1982 enumerated those
ln
same three painting styles, listing also their main seats in exile at that time:·
1. dBus-bris [=sMan-mying], followed in Dharamsala (seat of the Dalai Lama and his exile government)
2. Karma-sgar-bris, followed at Rumtek, Sikkim (seat in exile of the Karma-pa)
3. sMan-gsar or Khams-bris, followed at Tashijong (seat in exile of the Khams-sprul).

Ronge, son of the outstanding painter Rang-dge bsTan-'dzin-yongs·'du from Lha-thog Khams-pa..sgar in
Khams (original seat of the Khams-sprul), differentiated between several Khams styles, identifying a few
paintings as "sMan-ris of Khams,"'·;!· though erroneously asserting (p. 341) that one painting from the
sOar-bris tradition of dPal..spungs and Si-tu was a mixture of sGar..bris and sMan-bris. He also asserted that
the New Menri led to the Lhasa court style, though it is not clear on what authority he said so.

l;j~!f:f;~:i~:!;-~ The painting of Guru Rinpocbe's Copper-Mountain Paradise, no. 192 (Ru 111), p.
474f., is attributed (p. 476) to nineteentb-century successors to Zhu-chen's sMan..ris
.;St~:':!>t~~~~~~;i:,::......... school in Derge. But sMan-ris schools do not allow a painter to shade with indigo the
. ~. outer edges of clouds or to leave a horizon unpainted in this way. This is clearly a later
Khams Kanna sGar-bris., though with a landscape darker green than normal.

It should be noted that the painting illustrating an episode of

Zhu-chen's life presented in my book of 1996 does not represent a
1=-:=-!!iIII--- sMan-ris style.·~ / Indeed, Zhu-chen's own main collaborators
Lha-dgat and his brother were from Karma Lba--steng and would
be expected to have followed a Kar-shod-pa style, i.e. a Karma sOar-bris style
preserved near Karma monastery.

The depiction of the Buddha's birth at Lumbini, no. 11 (Ru 572), p. I55f., is correctly
identified as following an original printed from Derge. But these blockprints were used ~.
as models all over Tibet, and one has to differentiate clearly the block-print from a F{(j ::~;?;:.

painting based on it Therefore it is not sure the painting is from "Eastern Tibet, Kham, Derge"; indeed, the
coloring speaks against this. Solid dark blue is not known to have been used in Derge for skies. Is this a
provincial sMan..ris of Khams?

•.
Other attributions to IfDerge" are based on this one piece, all with "'r:~''---'t~:!III) w.-.",.•-;~.~--. '..~"'I :

solid ultramarine skies: no. 126 (Ru 38), no. 127 (Ru 56), and no. : ..'

2von6 10.1 2.2006 16:24

David Jackson http://www.himalayanart.orglexhibitsldavidldavidj31.html

180 (Ru 210). See also no. 6 (Ru 414), p. 146, "touches of
ultramarine could indicate link with Derge schools, though this is surel~ Karma sGar-bris of Khams. On p.
II

494, glossary under t'Derge school," a tradition by that name was asserted to have been an important school
of painting that flourished in Derge in recent centuries (cf. also p. 71, col. 1). Such a nDerge school" is
unknown to Tibetan authorities. Since the nineteenth century, at least two styles flourished in the Derge
kingdom: the Khams-bris (of Phur-bu-tshe-ring) and the sOar-bris (of nearby dPal-spungs). I cannot classify
these provincial..looking paintings, though they are certainly not in the high styles patronized by the Derge
kings and lamas.

Why is "White Vajradhara Father-Mother," no. 167 (Ru 382), p. 424f., said to be t'Eastem Tibetan (1)"1
The dark blue sky makes one immediately suspect a gTsang sMan-ris. The same may apply to the paintings
of Mila Repa's life, nos. 100 and 101 (Ru 180, 183), p. 312ff. In any case, they are definitely not in the
Karma sGar-bris of Khams: the skies are too dark.

The authors refer to "The Fourth Sbamarpa," no. 110 (Ru 2), p. 328f., as "Eastern
Tibetan, second half of the 16th century." This is probably an early-sixteenth-century
portrait and "biography" of the Fourth Zhwa-dmar painted by a follower of the
&Man-ris. It is not an example of an early sOar-bris. See also the portrait of probably
the same Zhwa-dmar (see p. 85, plate 3), which was seemingly made in about the same
time as the autobiographical thangka and may represent an early sMan-ris of about the
same period.
~·:·~~~~r~~!':·~\·' '~. .'\.~-~S

. : '.,;>"'.;:" , •..- .. i!1l.. ; Rhie (p. 68) compares another Zhwa-dmar portrait (Rhie and Thurman 1996, no. 113)
r:( :,; ;~;
with the Tenth Karma-pa's paintings in the context of Eastern Tibetan styles of the
second half of the seventeenth century. It would be better to leave out the Tenth Karma-pa from such
stylistic discussions since he was a special case, not mainstream in any sense. He left no school behind and
his eccentric style is not known to have had imitators.

3von6 10.12.2006 16:24

David Jackson bttp:/lwww.himalayanart.orgfexhibitsldavidldavidj31.html

Rbie's remarks, p. 68, about stylistic developments in the second half of the seventeenth century in eastern
Tibet remain bighly hypothetical and, as she readily admits, the styles "remain difficult to assess for this
period." It would be better to leave out tteastern Tibet" as a category for pre-eighteenth.century works until
several have been fmnly dated and attributed. Even then "Eastern Tibetan" remains too broad, if one cannot
specify either Khams or Amdo.

4. d. A-mdo-brls

A-mdo was home to the famous painting center of Re~bkong, and we are now fortunate to have photographs
(by Rob Unrothe) of scroll-paintings from this tradition from no later than the 1940s available on the
website. The distinctive features of this later sMan-ris school include its love of
symmetry in the overall composition and outlined clouds with trailing tails and pastel colors. Pointed
mountains sometimes loom prominently on the horizons of landscapes.

A few paintings from A-mdo have already been published in Bod kyi nang bstao Iha tis kyi sgyu rtsaI
(mTsho-sngon, mTsho ..sngon mi-dmangs dpe-skrun-khang, 1987, reprinted 1994), color plates 4-7. Note
that the four tbangkas reproduced on the front and back of the dust jacket (B uddha Shakyamuni,
Avalokiteshvara, Tsong-kha-pa and Padmasambhava) are in a different style, evidently that of gTsang
Tashilhunpo and dKat-chen Blo-bzang-phun-tshogs. Three possible candidates from A-mdo in the Rubin
collection catalogue are nos. 2 (Ru 39) "Shakyamuni," 36 (Ru 672) nGreen Tara with Her Twenty-one Main
Emanations," and 126 (Ru 38) "Tsong Khapa and Life Scenes.,t

My previous tentative attribution of one painting to A-mdo (Jackson 1996, p. lOS, fig. 35), may need
correcting to the nearby border district of rOyal-mo-rong. (The late "A-mdo Lba-bzo" Jamyang, for
instance, came not from Amdo proper, but from nearby rOyal-mo-rong.) The attribution as "seemingly
painted by an artist from A-mdo" bas been followed by Rhie and Thurman 1999, fig. 30.

Regarding "Scenes of the Avadana Kalpalata, " no. 10 (Ru 250), p. 154, Rhie states,
"This more closely resembles some Amdo works. The coloring is dominated by
":ifl~~~~~~ 1 olive-yellow green." Rhie, p. 69, similarly notes a difference between some later
copies of Si-tu Pan.chen's rTogs brjod dPag bsam 'khri shing paintings, suggesting
;,,:~,~~.~~~a that some were from Amdo. She may be right. At least the paintings seem to come
.;~~~. from somewhere in the far..eastern borderlands of Tibet. The artists have copied
Si-tu compositions, but they were not trained in a true sGar-bris style of Khams or
mTshur-phu. It is good to distinguish copies from within a tradition from those
coming from without. Here, judging by the facial features, the painters worked in a
provincial style from some border region.

4von6 10.12.2006 16:24

David Jackson http://www.bimaJayanart.orglexhibitsldavididavidj31.html

4.e. Ching Dynasty Court art (Cblna)

The elegant painting of a Gelukpa lama no. 135 (Ru 286), p. 368f., is not eastern
Tibetan art. The fields of evenly distributed stylized clouds mark it as a late
Sino-Tibetan work done in the Ching imperial court style documented by Theresa Tse
Bartholomew:~'\ Note that this was the style called "Kadampa" by Chogyam Trungpa
1975, p. 16.

A work possibly from Mongolia or northwestern China is no. 58. Its obviously
foreign flavor marks it as from somewhere outside the "Central Regions Tibet."

Conclusions

There is danger in trying to force all extant paintings into the Procrustean bed of the few well-known
traditional stylistic categories. Where no finn evidence exists, silence may be preferable. We are still at the
beginning of such studies, and whatever mistakes we make may well be repeated forever.

In the same way, circumspection is needed when making regional attributions. Why even speculate if hard
evidence is lacking? At the very least, one should first work out and articulate a few rules of thumb for
identifying each regional school, with the knowledge that such criteria may not work with hybrid styles or
certain special iconographic types.

On the other hand, too much caution brings paralysis. Thus Rhie's suggestions should be welcomed for what
they are: brave attempts to expand the frontiers of stylistic competence in a field that has stagnated too long.

29. Phuntsok Sangpo 1996 and Blo-bzang-phun-tshogs, bKa' ..chen 1993.

30. Acarya Ngawang Samten 1986, nos. 3-8 and 13-19. The first group is wrongly Identified as "Sgar-brls
style, It and the second group, depicting the famous Pa-Chen Rlnpoche set (thangka 13 Is the same
composition as cat. 131, Ru 471), Is just called "Sman-brls.'·
31. Phuntsok Sangpo 1996, p. 19. j"iJ{-K:i(j
32. Bro-khyung Is unknown to me. 'Brong.. rtse and Nor-bu-khungoooftSe are places In the Myang-chu valley
southeast of Tashllhunpo. '
33. Phuntsok Sangpo 1996, p. 18.
34. Phuntsok Sangpo 1996, p. 17. The Pan-chen Rlnpoche In question might have been the fifth,
Blo..bzang-bstan-pa'l-dbang-phyug (1855-1882). (t:d,~:k)
35. Lha-rtse rdzong In westem gTsang was tn the mid twentieth century home to about fifteen or Sixteen
painters who followed a more conservative and provincial gTsang-brls tradition. See Jackson 1996, p.
367, n. 826. Lha-rtse was already a home for painters by the 14305, the time of the painting of the
dPal-'khor stupa in Gyantse. 11:13.,:\1
36. On painters from rTse-gdong In recent generations, see Jackson 1996, p. 357, and p. 367, n. 816.
(t,aci.(";
37. Phuntsok Sangpo 1996, p. 18. rrse-gdong Lha-brls dBu-chen dBang-'dud-lags was assisted at
Sa-skya by the dBu-chung Zia-ba-don-grub and 'Jam~dbyangs. He Is mentioned In Jackson 1996, p.
351, as "lo-lags dBang-'dus-lags of bDe-skyld-gling village In rTse-gdong." !
38. Jackson 1996, p. 246, n. 545. [t~i3CkJ
39. Blo-bzang-'jam-clbyangs of Cha-phreng, Interview Dharamsala, 1996. (bac<,';
40. Namgyal G. Ronge (1982), p. 334. This early attempt at classification has, strangely enough, been
completely overlooked In later studies. A stili earlier attempt, A. Neven (1978), pp. 42-25 and 51,
nos. 26.. 28 and 42-45, confused dBus-bras and gTsang-brls. see Jackson 1996, p. 366, n. 807. [:'.:Lk.J
41. Ronge 1982, p. 337, spoke for example of a (Khams}sMan-ris popular In RI-bo-che, Nang-chen and
sGa-khog. [.~~~ci..!
42. Jackson 1996, p. 313, pl. 63.

Svon6 10.12.2006 16:24

David Jackson http://www.bimalayaoart.org!exbibiwdavidldavidj31.html

43 ..Theresa Tse Bartholomew 1997, p. 104ff. Lbd';.:kJ

Essay @ 2003 David Jackson I Copyright @ 2003 Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation

6von6 10.12.200616:24