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.

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.