An Indian Analysis of Aesthetics- The Dance, the Dancer and the Spectator

Here is a peep into my first ever book.

What is it that makes a dance beautiful and what is the mechanism of reacting to dance in a spectator? Where does the onus for relishing aesthetic pleasure lie and how does it come about? These are the questions, which receive attention in my book.

Some of the best known critical-aesthetic thoughts and theories right from the ancient Greco-Roman philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Longinus, and Augustine, the ancient Indian aestheticians like Bharata, Anandavardhana, and Abhinavagupta to the much later Japanese aesthetician Zeami, and the later European theorists like Kant and Brecht, are discussed in the book and it is pointed out that they all speak of an element of the metaphysical in art.

Indian Dance and Music in the traditional classical format are ingrained in the psyche of every Indian as 'divine'. This nature of dance encompassed the myriad aesthetic theories on the existence of beauty in art, its universal nature and its portrayal that lead the spectator to experience the sublime. The ‘divine origin’ theory of Bharata in the Natyasastrawas propounded as a proof of the divinity inherent in dance. The excessive usage of pious vocabulary with reference to dance by one and all, its metaphysical content and the realisation of bliss as a spectator of dance is not uncommon. The primary Indian aesthetic theory ‘Rasa Sutra’ does not offer any explanation as to how the ‘aesthetic relish’ experienced is next only to the supreme divine bliss, brahmananda. It is also limited in the explication of the process/mechanism of its attainment in the spectator. While it applied to the poet, choreographer and the dancer and the process of production of the theatrical spectacle, the enumeration of the process of the reception of the beauty of the performance and attainment of aesthetic relish by the spectator did not receive much attention.

However, Abhinavagupta in his commentary on Natyasastra, the Abhinavabharati, does offer some insight into the subject. What is it that the spectator undergoes or ought to undergo in attaining the aesthetic relish? Can such aesthetic relish ever be equivalent to the supreme divine bliss of brahmananda, if at all such an experience is definable and is a possibility?

K. VasudevaSastri’s book on SangitaDarpanam, a 17th century treatise on music and dance, in an appealing section—sariraviveka—in its very first chapter, and the SangitaRatnakara  both describe a subtle metaphysical apparatus in the human body in the context of perception of dance and music. This, I think constitutes a theory or mechanism of spectatorship. Sariravivekaboldly proposes the presence of a metaphysical apparatus in the human body consisting of a primordial energy and an assortment of energy centres, which together appear to be an instrument for perceiving the essence of music and dance. This section of SangitaDarpanamaddresses the theory of spectatorship and thus contributes to the historiography of spectatorship.

Sahaja Yoga, a form of meditation propounded by Dr. NirmalaSrivastava, known to her followers as ShriMatajiNirmala Devi, has a vast body of research in medicine on the apparatus similar to the one described in the section sariraviveka in the treatise SangitaDarpanam.The subtle body similar to the one described by sariraviveka in SangitaDarpanam has been amply elaborated by the late U.C. Rai, an eminent physiologist of India in his book “Medical Science Enlightened —New Insights into Vibratory Awareness for Holistic Health Care” is of significance here.  He has explained the working of the metaphysical apparatus in the body and has supported it with research on Sahaja Yoga. Rai’s findings are collated with the apparatus described in the sariraviveka.

The book tries to examine the philosophy wherein the fine art over the ages has been propounded to have a ‘metaphysical’ aspect. An examination of various theories is to suggest that the age-old primary aim of the artistic process is not a mere expression of the self, as is popularly asserted by artists today. It is about relating the artistic process to self and striving for the elevation of the self by both the artist and the spectator. Fine art and its aesthetics have ever been intimately connected  with beauty, morals, ethics, spiritual uplift, education, and daily living. It was not seen merely as a skill or a knowledge intensive entertainment tool that happens to portray higher values and morals or merely as a tool of ritual in its religious context; its core purpose was always the discovery of self through the perception of universal truths.

The book stresses that an aesthetic theory ought not to focus only on the nature of art and its basic and formal principles but should also address the mechanism of the perception of beauty or the attainment of ‘aesthetic relish’ by the spectator.

It is generally argued that one cannot understand the classical arts without being thoroughly educated in the several forms and genres and acquiring a good knowledge of the fundamentals of aesthetics. Without being thus equipped, it is claimed that one cannot know what to look for in the high art of any ‘Great Tradition’. The book accepts this argument in the case of a scholar, teacher, performer and writer of art, but declares it incorrect in the case of a spectator.The book argues that one can lucidly perceive the arts even with a minimum of empathy and open-mindedness to one’s culture and with only a little knowledge about artistic pursuits. The indirect, implicit, and the universal in the arts portrayed successfully can be perceived, appreciated and even understood by the most ordinary of viewers through the innate subtle mechanism with which humans are equipped. This is the thrust of thought contained in the concept of sariraviveka. Thus this book proposes that the most highly encoded art can be perceived and appreciated by the most ordinary of viewers through an innate mechanism that all humans are equipped with.

The book also examines the various classical dance forms of India and dwells on the salient elements in their form, technique, and repertoire and also the content that contributes significantly to the important dimension of the experience of ‘the sublime’ through the art form.

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.

Impaired Vision and Classical Dance

"The distance between Vedika (acting area)- front and the first seat in the Prekshagriha (auditorium) itself was 24 ft. and with the central place where the king or the chief guest sat, it could not be less than 30ft. (Natyasastra XXVII, 74 and 78-79) which was far too great for any subtle expressions to be seen. Bharata's theatre was an intimate theatre and distance did matter much."                                                                                           

Goverdhan Panchal, an eminent interpreter of Natyasastra, the  ancient treatise on Dramaturgy explains why all the important scenes were enacted in an area called the Rangapeetha (the main acting area in front of the vedika which was nearer to the spectator.)

Organizing classical dance in proscenium theatres, at huge festival venues in vast open spaces and even stadiums is like visually impairing a spectator first; and then asking him to appreciate a fantastic  spectacle. 

The chief guest and other VIPs occupy the first 4 rows after which the nuances of the classical dances are perceived progressively less; as we go beyond the privileged rows to the back of the auditorium. 

The ordinary spectator (not by virtue of his understanding of the form but by virtue of his proximity to the performance space) is lampooned for not connecting to the performance. The blame game often victimizes the spectator who actually suffers the recitals; as he misses out on the finer aspects of the dance. The dancers justify their diluted repertoires to the need of the audience which they assume is not very informed and therefore does not connect. (we discount the possibility that the dancer's skills could be suspect.) Organizers are obsessed by numbers and are mostly oblivious to the dynamics/ compulsions of staging classical dances. 

Organizers of festivals at large venues ask for huge dance troupes,  dramatic and racy choreography aided by the multimedia interventions and loud acoustics to appeal to the audiences. Synchronized classical dance movements, formations, acrobatics, the complementing light and sound show can grab eyeballs and hence is the main component of the new genre of classical dance much in demand today.

Solo performances with nuanced abhinaya (histrionic representation) which blend the delicate body language with the evocative singing can make an impact even on an uninformed spectator. He need not always decipher the language of alien gestures (hastas/ mudras) to understand the layered presentation that classical dance is. Classical dance could actually appeal to a wide cross section of the spectators and in fact it should; as rightly propounded by Bharata in his Natyasastra.

A classical dance performance has to be essentially in an intimate setting to generate the desired rasa (sentiment) apart from it being a performance of utmost skill emerging form disciplined and dedicated training.

It may help the organizers and dancers  to be a little sensitive to the spectators' needs, especially when they want to create a newer audience base and not blame the audience disconnect only on the western influences and changing times.

I cannot help but reiterate that SPIC MACAY is the only movement which has understood this basic ingredient of classical dance performances and takes the best of the maestros to youngsters in a simple and yet a comfortable and intimate setting and thus provides them with the profound experience of joy of high art.