Antiquities obviously have a different way of being priced from the works of contemporary art. But for a collector, works of art also share certain aesthetic principles with modern works. So the modern collector is able to buttress his contemporary collection with works that celebrate the constant current of change inherent in both man and nature.

Let us look at the sculpture section of the Christie?s catalogue of the New York sale slated for September 19, 2002, to see how this element is reflected in the price structure of ancient sculpture. There is lot 5, a large stucco Gandhara Buddha that is 37.4 cm high. It dates back to the third or fourth century AC, priced at between $10,000-$15,000 (Rs 5 lakh to Rs 7.5 lakh approximately). It is formal, iconic, and defies any concept of transformation with age.

Monumental Head of the Buddha; a Gandhara sculpture (Rs 30-40 lakh)

On the other hand, we have a grey schist Gandhara head of the Buddha of the second or third century (lot 26).

The height of the sculpture is 48.2 cm. But the price is between $60,000 to $80,000 (Rs 30-40 lakh). The price differential is considerable. This is largely because this head is in all likelihood, modelled on a real young man, with a moustache and every sign that the face will change with time.

The soft moustache is sculpted with such care that it is obvious the sculptor is reminding us that no one is spared the ravages of time. At the same time, the sculptor has chosen the spring of life to portray the Buddha of the renunciation. This charges the image with a narrative that is potent. The Buddha renounces home, family and a princely status at a point in life when young men are steeped in ambitions related to all three. This creates a powerful tension between the meditative eyes and sensuous lips, bringing the head to life as perhaps nothing else could. This is the secret of why this head is so much more expensive than the other one.

The first entity that directs the eye to change is how realistic a work is. The second is the narrative, with the work being a still from an ongoing process. The narrative may only be conceptual as in the case of lot 62, which pictures a sequence of the avatars (forms) of Vishnu. This sandstone relief from Rajasthan or UP dating back to the 11th century and 59 cm wide, is expected to fetch only $6000-$8000 (Rs 3-4 lakh), while lot 54, a later sandstone relief of Rajasthan or MP of the 13th century of duelling warriors that is 66 cm high is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $18,000 (Rs 6-9 lakh). The material is the same. The size is more or less the same, as is the quality of carving.

Both the works are from the same culture area and period broadly. But there are the simulated transition of concepts of change and motion in it. And within that framework, art that embodies the feeling of real changes (like age, the seasons, the flow of water, of fire, and so on) and real movement, like warriors fighting, people journeying or going about the tasks of daily life, is likely to be preferred.

The third element is gesture. In the ancient art of Asia, the gesture or mudra is an important element. But here too, we find a distinction. Take lot 96, which is a gilt bronze figure of the Arhat Pindola Bharadvaja from Tibet in a formal pose. The sculpture is 14.8 cm high and is expected to fetch between $3000 and $5000 (Rs 1.5-2.5 lakh), while the figure of Virupa of 15th century Tibet (lot 93), in bronze which is 18 cm. High and cast in less expensive metal is priced at between $15,000 and $2000 (Rs 7.5-10 lakh).

The difference is mainly in the former work embodying a gesture that is conventional, while the latter has a realistic finger pointing at the sun to stop it. So, even gestures in art can be divided into formal or stylised or unconventional and spontaneous. The latter, being closer to life, command a higher price.

Finally, some corrections to this part of the catalogue. There is a bunch of mangoes and mango leaves on top of a black stone stele of Ganesha (lot 42) and not ??a bunch of radishes?? as stated in the catalogue! Secondly, lot 167 is not ??an unusual gilt bronze figure of a llama ??but a relatively badly formed figure of a camel with its hair trimmed as it still is among camel herders. Such fanciful descriptions ought to be avoided, and buyers too, should use life as the touchstone to measure art and not be taken in by conventional fanciful representations. This holds true for all art, ancient or contemporary.