Rama breaks the bow for Sita’s hand in marriage
At first glance, it seems as though focal point is the bow; it’s being raised over all their heads by Rama, your eye is drawn to it. It seems like it should be the focus of the piece, but while your eye does get to it eventually, the center figure in this piece is actually Sita. That’s really interesting because if I were the artist I’d make the focus Rama’s incredible feat, but while this artist clearly emphasized its importance, the focus is clearly on Sita. Sita is portrayed passively, her head is bowed and she is offering a necklace or garland(or maybe holding it in prayer?) Rama is surprisingly small? I expected from the description that he would be larger, more broad shouldered, but assuming that Rama is the blue one, he is rather slight in frame. He is as tall as Sita, in fact his proportions are all in line with hers. He’s still a youth in this part of the story, but this is definitely remarkable because even though some women have been portrayed as powerful in the story so far, they are always subservient to the men. A physical representation of this power imbalance is something I would have expected, but the only thing that suggests this is Rama’s head lifted upward while Sita’s is lowered.
There are probably different translations and versions of the Ramayana, because I don’t believe that Sita was present for the bow-breaking, in fact, she was inquiring after the fact to the messenger as to whether this was the same guy she saw and became infatuated with earlier. I guess that my interpretation of the text I’ve read so far is different from what the artist portrays. The artistic rendition, as “m.ruiz” mentioned is that the atmosphere is very still, peaceful even. For me, this was an intense and captivating and suspenseful part of the story; this artistic portrayal does not reflect that. I understand the art style limits this type of expression, but this scene, if it were to be interpreted in an animated way, would not carry the feeling that the text evokes; instead it is one of heroism after the fact. The text is much more suspenseful, “…Rama approached the bow with slow dignity…onlookers held their breath and watched” (26). It’s very cinematic to me. But for the artist, there is no use for this interpretation. I suppose this is because Rama, as the god Vishnu incarnate, is obviously the hero. It’s obvious that he would have displayed extraordinary strength where other suitors would not. There is no question in the artist’s eye that this is an obvious outcome to that scene, and that there is no reason to interpret it in any way that would cast doubt on Rama’s powers.