In these scriptures creativity in terms of craftsmanship, is understood to have two important characteristics, a purpose and an order. Purpose provided value and order provided pleasure or delight. As Natya-shastra points out, however, that in a genuine creative performance, the essential elements are neither utility by itself nor a mere pleasing appearance, nor knowledge. Art, which is the end product of a creative function, is endowed with a deeper meaning beyond the physical aspects involved in the creation. This element was “rasa“ – essence of both emotion and facts, hard to describe for it was a sort of a subjective experience, and the most significant factor that would determine the ultimate objective in artistic endeavour. The fine sensitivity endemic in every individual had to be harnessed so that the exhilaration experienced by the artist also exhilarated the beholder. This was in fact a major test of the high calibre of the ‘silpa’ or art piece created. Rasa was an element of non-physical nature, an essential inner core, imparting vitality, unity and rhythm to a physical form, be it craft, music or dance. Properties capable of evoking subjective feelings and which subserved the artistic end, that is, an ability to evoke and achieve artistic consummation was galled ‘guna’ – quality, perfection.

Whatever creation failed to achieve was called ‘dosha’ – a blemish, imperfect.

There were other factors involved in the concept of rasa. No copying, that is, reproduction from nature or any object was permissible, as this was considered a mechanical, static process, and creation had to be dynamic. In the making of an object, the ‘concept’ was basic. The art object the artist produced has to be the essence of the impressions he absorbed deep into his consciousness, not a photographic copy. It has to be created through an inner experience, a state of being and not merely through re-using previous knowledge or experience or just going through the mentally static motions of doing an action. It has to be the essence, the rasa. The emphasis on the dynamic as opposed to the static was applicable to even architecture as evident from the Samarangana Sutradhara. If in a completed form, blemishes were discernible or mistakes marred its perfection, it was understood that these errors had arisen from a lack of clarity in the concept, not in the end result. Each time an artist creates something, it should be a fresh experience. A reproduction fell short of the essential meaningfulness a new experience was expected to provide. When an artist conjures up a new experience it enriches both the artist as well as the viewer or the user of the object. Mistakes could occur from cloudy or inadequate imagination or from a lack of the close coordination between the maker, the material and the method. An aesthetic balance could be achieved only when all these parts fused together to make a harmonious whole. As such a work of art had to have a dual purpose, outwardly for utility, inwardly for delight. The function of form is to manifest the meaning of the content. We must remember that every object made by the community was for himself or herself, for their daily use and therefore an intimate part of themselves, things they lived with. The value of the object was not in terms of what it would fetch but rather how well it would serve the social purpose, above all provide the inner sense of satisfaction.

A aesthetic balance could be achieved only when the maker, the material and the method fused together to make a harmonious whole

The theory so often propagated, that in India art had its roots in religion is erroneous. On the contrary every type of creative art had its roots in the activities of everyday life. There is no doubt that art provided a pleasing and a satisfactory vehicle for devotional practices but it never applied exclusively to religious practices. All creative activities enjoyed high appreciation and prestige. It is not surprising that one of the epitomes in which this sentiment is embodied is a mention in the Manusmriti – “The hand of a craftsman engaged in his art is always ceremonially pure”. This could be where the higher concept of master-craftsmanship in India stems from.  The social objective of craftsmanship and the psychological experience of creation were the only two cardinal factors in determining quality. There could be no other criterion or test. In these times, communities were essentially self-contained, whatever they produced was for themselves and not for sale. Money economy had not made its appearance yet. Prestige and honour were determined only by the high quality of workmanship.

“The hand of a craftsman engaged in his art is always ceremonially pure”

Manusmriti

These values presented themselves in all types of craftsmanship. Textile designs ranged from the most delicate and suggestive to the most elaborate manifestation of the complex techniques. The basketry was exquisite, with incredibly refined weave and in a wealth of beautiful shapes and designs. The wood carvings were startlingly alive. In fact, all products made by the community vibrated with life, as though the maker infused some of his own self into his creation. Each had to be a craftsman to be a creator, for when he shaped his object he was in a way shaping his own personality. Here there was no duality of the subjective and the objective. Creation is a self-involved experience of basic oneness of the personality that we have come to call Sadhana – a cultivated state of being. The maker did not probe or delve into himself to build up the complex analytical philosophy that others were later to contrive.  For his mental exercises were simple and direct. Continuing to be an intimate child of nature, he was conditioned to follow certain natural laws, which taught techniques and guided processes, sensitivity to right proportions and balances which nature so exuberantly portrays, and sharpens sensibilities that make for economy in material and operational time.

Creation is a self-involved experience of basic oneness of the personality that we have come to call Sadhana – a cultivated state of being

The presence of the craftsmen in the midst of a simple agricultural society made possible the self-contained life of the community, so striking a feature of the Indian village. Living in a society organised on the basis of personal relations and duties which descended in each family from generation to generation. Instead of belonging to a society founded on contract and competition, their payment was provided for in various ways, of which money payment was the least important and most unusual. Barter and personal service took the place of today’s money transactions. Wealth was hoarded, if at all, rather in the form of jewellery than of money. Prosperity consisted in having several years’ provisions of grain in one’s granary as opposed to the money in one’s bank. Anything of the nature of a shop or store was unknown.

For the customary services, the craftsmen were repaid at harvest-time, receiving a fixed proportion of sheaves of grain from the crop collected on the threshing floor, or they might be given a share of the communal land. Agriculture was the staple profession of every household and everyone was directly dependent on the land they tilled. Village servants in Punjab were paid by grain fees, so many bundles of crop of wheat or barley, each bundle the size accommodated by a string of three straws in length. The blacksmith got one Kat of paddy and three Karas for every plough in the village, and was also paid two or three annas for every new phar or ploughshare; in a few villages he held half a powa of land rent free. Almost always, a share was set aside for religious and charitable purposes, before the remainder of the crop was divided between tenant and landlord.