Killing the Spectator

I reached Ravindra Bharati, the cultural hub of Hyderabad, to witness a Kuchipudi recital, dot at 6 pm, the appointed time of commencement of the performance. The program finally began at 7.20 pm with a book release function clubbed to the dance event; and the dance recital finally began at 8.15 pm. That was not just stretching the patience of the spectator a bit too far but instead; was a definitive attempt to kill the spectator. Then the organizers wonder why the classical programs attract so very few people; not to talk of the largess of mediocrity doled out in dance.

Bharata used the term prekshaka for a spectator. Abhinavagupta, the major commentator on Natyasastra used the term sahrdaya, for a sensitive spectator. Rasika (one who relishes aesthetic pleasure) is a term which emerges from the Srimad Bhagavata.  There are many such parallel terms for a spectator. The sacred and secular in art gave different terms to the spectator (also called the nagarika) - rasika (urban pleasure seeking elite) or the bhakta (devotee).

 Bharata says that the cultured people (sumanaska-s- who are of good heart and mind) make superior spectators.

Indeed, one has be very cultured not to lose one’s cool at the event management horrors and substandard performances. 

However the book release was enriching as was the dance by Mutnuri Yagnanarayana Sarma. The long sabha karyakramam gave me an interesting insight into the mind of the author, “Nagna muni" (a nom de plume) and his work, “Akasadevara” which was praised by some of the renowned critics present. The book is a comment on the phenomenon of “Marketing” of faith. The business of religion, faith and culture has assumed gigantic proportions with the commoditisation, politicisation and bureaucratisation of the same. The scams, the fanaticism and the exploitation in the name of religion and culture have assumed serious proportions with the media emerging as the hydra headed chimera aiding the phenomenon. The sale of astrological aids to good life, success, wealth and fame, religious discourses, etc. make great financial and TRP prospects. The governments do not touch influential business or religious groups as a part of their vote bank politics.

Culture today, especially dance is definitely suffering from bureaucratisation in the hands of the government and their bodies assigned to look after the propagation and preservation of the same. Whether one likes to use the term marketing, in connection with dance or not; dance has definitely been packaged and commoditised. It has to be made into a good selling proposition; at least to get grants from the relevant bodies.

Interestingly the huge ugly banner, the back drop in yesterday's performance gave the dancer's particulars as " Mutnuri Yagna- Of "Swathi Muthyam" cine fame..... The dancer could not help but draw on the filmi connection to give credibility to his stature; its another matter that he is such a good dancer that his art does not require any recommendation or endorsement.

Coming back to where I began; what about the poor spectator? 

Notwithstanding the tall order of qualities of a good dancer and a good production in the Natyasastra; no matter, how Bharata had envisaged the ideal dance/drama and the ideal dancer/actor; I intend to only look at the ideal spectator as defined by him, in this post.

One is free to draw one’s own conclusions on the rarity of the breed of spectators of classical dance. Even if one aspires to be an ideal one, the spectator could be killed by a combination of factors including mediocrity of the dance itself …. A dear friend who recently responded to my questionnaire for a project on Arts Marketing as a part of my Senior Research Fellowship of Ministry of Culture said, “The most disconcerting aspect of today’s dance scenario is that the artist/organiser no longer cares for the spectator.” 

Abhinavagupta in Abhinavabharati, has placed a great responsibility on the spectator....  a spectator ought to be a social being who is also so large hearted that he empathises with every individual of the society and thus is equipped to respond to the poet’s mind and thus can get immersed in the characters of the play and thereafter according to his samskara (culture, taste, sensibility) interpret the same.  

A spectator ought not be an analyser or moralist. Scholars and learned men have said that- " he cannot be built by education; instead he is supposed to be a  product of the refinement attained by complete submission and submersion in art.... just like the rocks which attain fine lustrous smoothness as they are constantly washed down by the river." Thus, becoming an ideal spectator is an arduous  and continuous process.

Art, in the Indian tradition is not for mere entertainment or is not just ornamental; it is considered to be sacred and moreover the spectator is not supposed to be a person of superficial disposition; he is expected to apply himself seriously and deliberately to enjoy and understand art. Natyasastra specifies in Chapter 27, verses 54-62 the qualities of a spectator... Bharata differentiates a critic (which I shall expound in some other post) from a spectator (prekshaka).

A person who is undisturbed, clean, imaginative, sympathetic and  unbiased is qualified to be called a prekshaka. He who vibrates sympathetically to joy or sorrow, anger and fear is a superior spectator. Bharata calls cultured people as sumanaska-s (of good heart and mind) who make superior spectators.

Bharata further says that the ideal spectator is one who is possessed of a good character, high birth, quiet behaviour, and learning, and is desirous of fame and virtue, impartial, advanced in age, proficient in drama in all its 6 aspects, alert, honest, unaffected by passion, expert in playing the 4 kinds of musical instruments, acquainted with costumes, and make up, the rules of the dialects, the four kinds of histrionic representation, grammar, prosody, and various other sastras, is very virtuous, expert in different arts and crafts and has the fine sense of the rasa- s (sentiments) and bhava-s (states)......

To be an ideal spectator is a pursuit of a lifetime and beyond.
But, is the spectator being provided with the art on which he can thrive ?

References:

Ghosh Manomohan, The Natyasastra, The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1950.

Dehejia Harsh V., The Advaita Of Art, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1996.

Silence- Not a virtue anymore?

I have suffered for long from the malaise of doubting myself, my intentions and my views, especially on the aesthetics of classical dance. Maybe, my readers would classify me as a chronic un-realist with a critical attitude bordering on cynicism.

Dance circles have often baffled me.  I was brought up on the supposed portrayal of  “universal truth” through art which leads to the ultimate liberation- attainment of enlightenment. A couple of programs, once in a rare blue moon, do indeed make an impact enough to wonder whether the calm and repose felt during the performance and also much after that; is what the near divine aesthetic relish is all about. Many would scoff at this revealation, though not openly. 

One does come across maestros whose art and also their simplicity and humility can utterly humble one; while on the other hand, one encounters artistes exemplifying showmanship bordering on arrogance. It is ironic to often see clichéd mannerisms of utter reverence being overdone- for instance one pulls the earlobe in reverence when one’s teacher’s name is taken, the right hand is placed on the chest with an exaggerated humble bent of the torso and so on and so forth…. And the same artiste, in another instant, could exhibit aggressive and opportunistic salesmanship to sell and project his art. Can humility and uncouth aggression co exist in mutually exclusive compartments in the same person?

Performances with a still center are as rare as they are difficult to define. Maybe such performances are the ones which are not just for the sake of enjoyment or education but which have the power to take the spectator to a state of harmony with his own self or take him closer to the unknown realm of universal truth …

In the, so called, thinking dancers’ parlance, dance is all about expressing one’s own self… while the great maestros of dance across ages espoused that it was all about the self, merging into the character and thereafter into the universal truth. In many dance and theatrical forms,like in Kathakali, as the make-up progresses the artiste goes into a meditative transformation and actually becomes the character much before the play begins.

Mostly, one gets to witness personal flamboyance and the loud showmanship, playing to the gallery as is the norm with today’s performances, especially Kathak. There is hardly any experience of silence amid the show of virtuosity. Once I witnessed a talented Kutiyattam artiste, used to the adulation and awe of the uninformed audiences, portray the prolonged scene of Bali's death, with all subtlety thrown to winds. The seasoned spectator was restless and wished for the speedy death of the character being portrayed; while the uninformed got carried away for a while by the gimmickry of the long drawn throes of death and its various stages. After a certain point the performance became a misery for all. But who can enlighten the artiste? 

Clinical precision in technique or virtuosity which generates a harmonic equilibrium with the symmetric rhythm in nature is an essential ingredient of dance and creates a sense of beauty. However, the subtle and the understated are the virtues which manifest as the calm and repose in a performance which need to form the core/essence of a performance.

However, this could only be a view of a spectator suffering from critical cynicism.