Relevance and Reach
We tend to therefore fondly reminisce times gone by, assuming that a Utopian world existed once upon a time. Today, bereft of patronage and meaningful engagement with audiences, artistes yearn to recreate that Utopian ecosystem. But in order to reinstate such an ecosystem in current times, we must first understand that Art reflects the ecosystem in which it thrives. By corollary then, 'Art will thrive only when it is in tandem with the ecosystem it lives in'. Bringing us to acknowledge that Art must be Relevant for it to Reach out to society. And understanding 'relevance' is multilayered. This article aims to peel back a few of those layers to see if we can set the foundations of a Utopian world for the Arts.
One of the primary checkpoints in understanding relevance is to objectively examine time periods for what they were. Examine any time period of the past- and it stands testimony to the fact that arts have shared a close relation with the socio-cultural and political landscape of those times. Art thrived when it spoke in the language that was popular with the masses. When songs and dance spoke in praise of noblemen and kings, they found an immediate connect with the common people, not to mention the increased patronage of the said king! When kings and people enjoyed wealth and abundance, this opulence was visible in the performance arts as well. The luxury of indulging in elaborate poetry, in multilayered lyric and soul stirring music was evident in performance. Performers teased large audiences with samples of their extensive repertoire. When the audience was stirred enough, they were drawn in for a more nuanced rendition filled with subtleties. With colonial visitors came English and other European languages, their music and literature, finding a way into the indigenous arts very organically. Heavy influences are seen across musical notes, multi lingual songs and performance pieces. None seem out of place.
Along the way, with the advent of nationalistic fervour, the inherent narratives also saw an evolution from indulgent poetry to a more brisk and abstract expression of nationalistic pride. The sensuality of the previous centuries gave way to projecting a puritanical face of the classical arts, probably so that it could become a symbol of nationalism and yet not allow further denouncement by the European eyes which viewed the sensuousness of Indian arts with distaste. This is a time period that is often debated and deliberated upon even today for it saw the most visible changes in the social identity of the performers and the content of dance performances. The dynamic changes that visibly began in early 20th century continued post Independence. Socially, we were beginning to understand hierarchy, class, caste and the urban-rural divide. However, we were continuing to view ourselves through a colonial lens. Politically, we were taking our first steps into a new model of governance. Culturally, we were trying to establish our unity in diversity. With these changes came changes in performance aspects. The 20th Century also saw a great deal of worldwide travel by Indian performers. And didn't elements of Western Ballet become integral to Indian classical dance? As did several other influences. For the Indian diaspora conquering far away lands, music and dance became bubbles of home. They held on to these in an attempt to retain a part of their homeland identity while living in a society that was far disconnected from theirs. And therefore like every Indian festival, dance also became a community celebration- that Arangetrams eventually became mini-weddings is not desirable for the sake of the art, but it is what it is!
What is important to understand from these simplistic observations is that art has always been current. Current with respect to the demographic that it caters to, current with respect to content that connects with society and current with respect to the grammar that it embodies. In being current, we find relevance. In being current, art reaches out to society.
What then IS current when it comes to classical art today? To answer this question, we must first understand the complexities of society we live in today and the art that caters to it. Over the last 3 or 4 decades, television and movies have created a pop culture that some accept and others abhor. If cinema and television are reflective of society, then this a society that seems far removed from appreciating classical literature, subtle poetry and nuanced movement. A majority of the content on popular media channels indulges in the glamour of attracting audiences through misogynistic narratives. Add to this, the urban-rural divide is a gaping wound. Agrarian communities are no longer prosperous like they once were. With constant migration into urban centres for work, time and inclination to indulge in the arts is non-existant. This is a population that wants quick fix entertainment, and TV and no-brainer movies are in abundance to cater to them. In the process, there is a huge disconnect - for aesthetic art requires time and space to unfold serenely. For those who do have the time and means to indulge in subtleties of aesthetic art, the disconnect is of another kind. Urban anglicised education has created a rift because of language. A majority of today's youth think in English and are therefore unable to relate to regional poetry. Their own culture seems alien. All this and more- leaving performers themselves in a quandary over how to toe the line of 'classical' and yet cater to an audience that is zipping through time on the fast track.
One must understand that we call something 'classic' because it transcends time and remains relevant at all times. So if we must create 'classics' out of our classical dance, we must find ways to do it. And to begin, we must draw our audience in or rather reach out to them. In today's context 'reaching out' is often limited to the context of 'how many performances one has to his/her credit'. However, in its true essence, 'reaching out to' refers to a dynamic engagement with the audience- a give and take , a conversation between audience and performer. Big large auditoriums rarely get filled to capacity these days by lay audiences. Should we then not take our art to spaces that are more welcoming of lay audiences? Where does one dance though? Do you take it to the public sphere? Do bus stops and cafes demean the art form? What is a sanctified environment to perform in? Will dance head back to the temple, albeit in a modified avatar? How do rural people access classical arts that have hardly been seen over the past few decades? How many performers today have the time, financial means and will to go beyond their comfort zone to create newer avenues?
It does seem like there are more questions than answers. But if we ask genuine questions with pure intent, answers are bound to show up. And we do see that the performance space is slowly evolving to catch up with the times we live in. Living rooms, terraces, intimate theatres and art cafes in many corners of cities are buzzing every weekend with performances. Time is at a premium and travel takes hours even for short distances. If small self sustained gated communities are today's reality, curated intimate performances must also become an integral part of these communities. Rural outreach performances are happening in schools and colleges. However, we must also find ways of sustaining interest and converting one-time audiences into regular audiences. This is possible only when dance education becomes an integral part of the children's lives. Beyond creating an audience, it will go a long way in inculcating a sense of genteel- a quality that is much needed in today's aggression filled world. So go the extra mile and find ways of funding a dance or music class at the local government school or one in your family's ancestral village!
From performance spaces to content. What makes a performance relevant today? Very often we hear people say- 'stories of gods, goddesses et al is passe. You dance the story of Kali one day only to read about dowry death the next day in the papers.' Many students of dance themselves wonder why they should learn mythical stories that do not resonate with their beliefs. Why not express their anguish over social injustice instead? And it is here that the answer is two-fold. One, the metaphorical and philosophical significance of Indian story telling has been lost to the present generation. We have to reiterate this, especially to students of dance and music. Was Savitri the epitome of a good wife only? When are we going to talk of the magnificent philosophy of this ancient tale? Was Krishna indeed married to 60000 wives, or are we referring to the nadis within- we have to understand these layers and spell it out to our audiences.
Two, the inherent narrative of how we tell these stories must evolve as we move out of patriarchal hold. Celebrate 'Sita' for her virtues but we have to cut out the narrative that enduring hardship is a virtue. How many women even today are told to put up with domestic violence by quoting absurd examples of Sati and Sita is unfortunate. As performers, we have the power to create and change narratives. Re-contextualise for today's world- poetry and prose are not stagnant; they lend themselves to be molded in the minds of the performer.
Let us use more and more of contemporary poetry to carry messages of love and reform. Let us embrace folk art and culture to reach out to more people. Let us blur the lines that rigidly separate 'styles' or 'forms' of dance, music and theatre. We have to find modes of expression that strike a chord with the audience. Use drama, sing and dance, play an instrument if you should on stage... But if you do all this is there a fear of stepping over the boundaries of 'classical art'? This is where it becomes important to be in constant connect with your Guru. It is their age and experience that can guide you as you create your own unique methods of expression. As students of dance, this also drives us to another point- that our own study of the art forms and allied subjects must become deeper. Only then will we be able to toe the line of 'aesthetics' and 'classicism'.
There is also one other gnawing debate that often crops up. That dance today is highly acrobatic and it is the twirls, leaps and splits that draw applause; that subtleties of classical dance have no place in such show of body agility and flexibility. What could put an end to this debate? Shall we agree to find a delicate balance between the twirling leaps and understated expression? Well, the economy jumps, twirls and takes sudden dives- you are bound to see glimpses of it in art too! *Wink* On a more serious note, Art cannot only be a adrenaline pumping machination. 'Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable', said Banksy of visual art. In today's lopsided world of haves and have nots, it couldn't be truer. To work with the body and evoke an emotion that goes beyond the body is what every artiste dreams of. Acrobatic twirls or not- each performer chooses for themselves. The audience chooses for themselves. Society will choose for itself.
There is much to deliberate every time we perform. Who should this piece of art reach out to? Is it relevant to me as a student? Is it relevant to me as a performer? Will it be relevant to my audience? Will it be relevant to society? As performers we have an active role to play in how we individually drive our art and influence our audience. Yet, collectively, the path that Art takes will be dictated by a complex society. Only time will tell. And that is why the Art is always bigger than the Artiste.
My humble salutations!
Published in the 2020 Souvenir of the International Conference of Music and Dance (Indranagar Sangeetha Sabha)
Do not reprint/republish or quote without prior Intimation to author.
Comments
Post a Comment