Hindu royal temples in Indian styles provide the basis for the architectural and decorative elements found in the ancient monuments of Southeast Asia. But a distinct local aesthetic emerged early on, when builders identified architectural form with cosmological beliefs. Each Hindu temple centres on a shrine, symbolizing heaven upon earth. The shrine is crowned by a roof tower representing the cosmic Indian mountain, Meru, conceived as the hub of creation. Since all the peoples of Southeast Asia already believed the natural habitat of spirits and gods to be a mountaintop, the Indian pattern was readily accepted. The temple usually stands upon a lofty terraced plinth (a block serving as a base), which also symbolizes a mountain. Towered shrines could be multiplied on the terraces, though one of them remains the principal focus. Within the cell of this main shrine is a sacred image carved in stone or cast in bronze. The local Hindu ruler identified the subject of this image as his transcendent patron, or celestial alter ego. This was normally one of the Indian high gods, Shiva (represented perhaps by a phallic emblem, the linga) or Vishnu. In Mahayana Buddhist kingdoms, a royal bodhisattva (a being that refrains from entering nirvana in order to save others) was sometimes adopted to fulfill the same role; a favourite form was known as Lokanatha, or Lokeshvara, Lord of the World. Subsidiary shrines, niches, or terraces sometimes contain subsidiary images, including goddesses representing at the same time wives of the god and queens of the king. These images were worked in smooth, deeply rounded, and sensuously emphatic styles derived from Indian art but with varying inflections characteristic of each region and time. The whole exterior of the shrine is usually adorned with rhythmic moldings, foliage, and scrollwork, with figures representing the inhabitants of the heavens. Ideally, the building was constructed and carved in stone, but, particularly where good stone was not readily available (for example, in Burmese Pagan), it could also be brick, coated and sculptured with stucco after northeast Indian patterns. Temple complexes tended to grow as successive kings strove to outdo their predecessors with the magnificence of their buildings. Hindu rulers, influenced perhaps by vestiges of tribal custom, would sometimes retain their own family’s temples and images while destroying those of earlier dynasties.

Buddhism, however, is a religion based on a doctrine of transcendent merit and sustained by an order of monks who have, ultimately, no vested interest in kings and gods. They may, however, take a great interest in the world of spirits and in the operations of astrology, just as the local population does, even though they regard such matters as subordinate to the ultimate Buddhist aim of universal nirvana. Buddhist monasteries, therefore, tended to expand around stupas (domed monuments emblematic of the Buddhist truth, also called pagodas or dagabas) of ever-increasing size and number; the preaching halls, libraries, and living quarters for monks were continually enlarged and repeatedly rebuilt, often as a testimony to the piety of royal patrons. Although, strictly speaking, Theravada Buddhism has no place for a “divine ruler” whose identity an actual king may adopt, provision was made in legend and in court and monastic ritual for the ruler of a Theravada Buddhist country to assume a magical role as the dominant sponsor and patron of the Buddhist truth. His legendary prototype was, therefore, usually identified not with an icon of the enlightened Buddha but with images such as the chief disciple at the knee of the enlightened Buddha, as Prince Siddhartha (the Buddha-to-be), or figuring in scenes of the Buddha’s life that lined the monastery halls and corridors.

Both Hindu and Buddhist art were produced according to theoretical prescriptions. If the formulas were not followed, the art was believed to not fulfill its transcendent function. In practice, however, there was room for styles and types of images to change and develop fairly quickly. Hindu and non-Theravada art recognizes what could be called aesthetic values as a component in religious expression. Theravada Buddhism, however, always attempts to preserve the closest possible connections with the Buddha’s recorded original deeds and sayings; its art, therefore, concentrates on repeating in its main Buddha figures the most exact possible imitations of authentic ancient images. The Theravada Pali canon lists 32 major lakshanas—the attributes of the Buddha—plus 80 minor anatomical characteristics. Some of these interpretations have developed over time. Many of these attributes appear to be Brahmanical and pre-Buddhist (pre-6th century bce), which explains why they are often linked to depictions of Hindu deities as well. (See below Burma; Thailand and Laos. In the subsidiary sculptured and painted figures, however, which illustrate scenes from sacred history, Theravada art has greater freedom of invention. In the 20th century, Theravada Buddhism was the only form of Indian religion to survive in Southeast Asia, save for the modified Hinduism of Bali. Its architecture from this period is decorated with a robust and innovative use of coloured glass, mirrored tiles, and a fantastical array of bright colours.

General development of Southeast Asian art

Most of the works made under the inspiration of the earliest magical and animist tradition are in perishable materials such as wood. Because the climate is so hostile, most of the works that survive are from the last few centuries.. There are, however, a large number of Neolithic stone implements and prehistoric stone monuments (megaliths) as well as bronzes, which provide a solid archaeological basis for interpretation of Southeast Asia’s earliest art traditions.

For the art of the classic Indianizing civilizations, the archaeology of European countries played a major role in clearing, excavating, and reconstructing major sites in their colonies—i.e., the French in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam; the Dutch in Indonesia; and the British in Burma. Old bronzes were found in fair quantities; apart from those of the early Dong Son culture (also see below Bronze Age: Dong Son culture), all belong to one or other of the Indianizing traditions. Many old brick and stucco buildings survive, notably the medieval work at Pagan, Burma, and in central Thailand, though an enormous number are known to have perished. Apart from Pagan’s murals and a few Indianizing rock and wall paintings on plaster, very old paintings are not known to exist. Most of the surviving Buddhist pictorial art on wooden panels or other fragile material is less than 300 years old.

The stone of dynastic buildings of course survived the best, by far. Scholars thus know much more about Indianizing stone architecture, with its sculpture, than about any other Southeast Asian visual art. But where good relief sculpture flourished, one can legitimately assume that vanished pictorial arts also flourished. And from details carved in stone and incised on bronze as well as from the scattered enthusiastic references in Chinese sources, one can be sure that throughout their history the Southeast Asian peoples were intensely creative and lived their lives surrounded by a wealth of imaginative art in many different mediums.

There are many sites yet to be discovered and excavated. Knowledge of the history of art in many parts of Southeast Asia, especially of important episodes in Burma, Thailand, and Sumatra, was still scantily documented in the 21st century.