Art forms flourish based on the creativity of the artistes. If the creative endeavors of artistes are too closely trammeled, it could end up stultifying the art itself - since any creative endeavor needs an atmosphere that welcomes change to flourish. The obverse of this is the fact that art flourishes only when it communicates to a large audience for all art is, inherently, a mode of communication. People, though, are normally averse to change and, thus, any change attempted by the artiste is bound to face opposition.
Thus, any art flourishes as an exquisite balancing act - one that allows creative freedom to the artiste while simultaneously meeting audience expectations. This, in effect, means that the creative freedom of the artiste shall, by and large, lie in pushing the boundaries rather than in a wholesale redrawing of the boundaries. When the boundaries are sought to be redrawn, the endeavor is always fraught with tension and the risk of failure is high.
One of the foremost Carnatic musicians of the age - T.M. Krishna - is currently in the process of trying to redraw the boundaries of the way Carnatic music is performed on stage. His points relating to the attitude towards women vocalists and to the treatment of instruments like the Nadaswaram. Points well taken and needing some change.
My brush with T.M. Krishna's unorthodoxy, though, comes as a ignorant rasika of the oeuvre. I cannot really say that the freedom for the artiste to cut short a concert to half the scheduled time appealed to me. One does understand, and recognize, that an artiste may not always be inclined to practice his art. A painter or writer, for example, can take a break and get back to it when he feels he can give his best. When it comes to performances on stage, though, there is a problem. The least of audience expectations that a performer needs to meet is the time for which the performance is held. People do choose where they spend their time and, if you make them rue their choice by not meeting even a basic expectation, you are doing no service to the art. This, in his defense, I need to say happened last year.
T.M. Krishna has gained an reputation for setting the entire concert procedure on its head. The regular expectations of how the concert would start, when the smaller length Kritis would be sung, when and how the Ragam-Tanam-Pallavi would be sung and what would be sung to tail off the concert - nothing is predictable in a Krishna concert these days. The one thing that seems almost certain these days is that he will NOT adhere to the regular modus operandi. But for that, the theme seems to be to expect the unexpected.
Creation changes and evolves by someone breaking the tradition. The current modus operandi was also an innovation in its time and, probably, much reviled then. The changes now being wrought by T.M. Krishna could well be the harbinger of another change. The only problem is that any audience needs SOMETHING to expect. It may not be the existing modus operandi but there needs to be a Krishna modus operandi, at least. There is no point in saying that the audience need have no expectation but to hear good music - what constitutes good music OR a good concert is always a matter of taste.
Creativity is not merely an exhibition of chaos. It is judicious use of chaos to upset and improve the existing order. If there is no order that the audience can pin itself to, then the change that Krishna brings shall work only for a genius like Krishna but will fail in the intent of bringing any lasting change to the Carnatic landscape. It is only when other and, dare I say, lesser musicians are also able to do what Krishna does, and still attract an audience, can the change become lasting.
Human beings still do not readily adapt to change. How much more hide-bound will both the organizers and rasikas of what calls itself a traditional system of music be? The only way to really change a traditional system is to bring in a new 'tradition'!
The irony is that a creator fighting for creative freedom can only succeed when he himself sets up a new pattern that sets a discipline - and not a sing-as-you-please system - for others to follow. Failing which, he shall remain merely an eccentric one-off experimenter.
Don't know anything about Carnatic tradition, so can't really comment on anything specific. But just a general thought that comes to me about any classical art form is this - I don't think change simply for the change sake, for the sake of novelty is such a great thing in itself. There needs to be some thought and reflection on what is it that needs to be changed or modified, why and how. There are a whole lot of other musical forms and traditions - light music, semi-classical, fusion, etc - where much more freedom exists and should exist. But there is something to be said about the need for preserving some purity of the classical art forms, though it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any new experimentation or over-the-time organic evolution of the tradition. Nothing ever remains the same, no tradition. But personally when I go to a classical concert (Hindustani), I go with a certain expectation and I wouldn't like the artist to really go off on a tangent just because.....???? There is another issue here that you touch upon, which I also think is an important one. What is really the purpose of art? Any art form? Surely, entertainment isn't the only one. Certainly not in the context of Indian classical art forms - be it music or dance. So shouldn't a classical performer be mindful of that deeper purpose of his/her art before making any changes to the form? Thanks Suresh for making me think these thoughts :)
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement, Beloo! Thing is TM Krishna is not meddling with the basic structure of the music. Only with the structure of the performance and THAT can always stand some change. YES - art means a lot more than entertainment but any higher purpose is sustained/changed/renewed ONLY if the modifications gain widespread acceptance.
DeleteCould only vaguely relate as I do not know much about music and art.
ReplyDeleteIt is a more generic issue about how free the artiste is, Karthik :)
DeleteI loved this line Suresh - Creation changes and evolves by someone breaking the tradition.
ReplyDeleteHistory and culture has always been shaped by these people who have gone beyond and made it happen. And it is so beautiful to see some variations and experiments thrive in the art form. It kinda elevates music to a new stage altogether :). transcending the limits :)
When it succeeds,yes! Else it could end up being an one-off eccentricity.
DeleteThat's a very interesting idea sir. I believe you are suggesting that change in small doses is much easier to accept for people. I wonder if it is the same with other things that are not art per se. Like behavioral changes in groups of people. Liberalism, feminism, atheism and so on. Would people find it easier to accept if the changes are in small doses, instead of a "all or none" approach that is fashionable these days?
ReplyDeleteIn every area, Adarsh! Change is always inevitable but unwelcome. The arts, being the realm of creators, is more prone to change, that's all.
DeleteLooking for ' method in the madness' ? Chaos has never thrived. There is always an anticipation for an 'order', a pattern to follow. Maybe the artiste is still trying to bring about 'his' pattern. But then TM Krishna is a seasoned artiste. I agree with you that a change in classical art form ( or any change for that matter) is frowned upon. There are certain Bharatnatyam performances that leave me asking many questions regarding playing with the basic tenets of it in the garb of experimentation. It augurs well for the artiste, the performer to respect the Rasik, the receiver.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Ilakshee! The arts thrive on madness becoming method :)
DeleteArtistic freedom is indeed,very much needed but also , as you rightly said - "..a creator fighting for creative freedom can only succeed when he himself sets up a new pattern that sets a discipline - and not a sing-as-you-please system - for others to follow" This,I think, is more in case of art forms like music and dance, where there is an audience which pays to enjoy and therefore, their expectation becomes paramount. In case of arts like fine arts, the shackles of adhering to an audience expectation is far lesser, as you don't charge a customer to look at a painting at an exhibition. There the artist is free to paint as he/she wishes. In fact, the Kochi Bienalle (which i still need to atttend) is stated to question all conventional forms of art
ReplyDeleteTrue, Ash! Even with the fine arts, though, the artiste is hailed a success only when his art becomes a 'school' :)
DeleteNicely written indeed! Why don't you send this to Kutcheri Buzz ...I would certainly like to see a broader response to this trend, especially from the informed class..
ReplyDeleteThanks! The post can be shared
Delete