Research in Dance – Possibilities and Challenges - Part 2

Today, physiology has developed as an independent branch of study. We must take its help in our analysis of movement vocabulary. Physiology can help us understand what joints can take what kind of movements and the limitations of the different parts of our body. We can also get an idea about the extent to which each individual can contribute based on his bodily limitations. It is all the more important to analyse every movement from the point of view of aesthetics while keeping physiology as the backdrop. It is only beauty that matters in art – everything else is peripheral to it.

Beauty is an idea that is subjective and varies from one individual to the other, however, what we need here is the analysis of beauty within the framework of aucitya (appropriateness, propriety) of the particular art. Aucitya in turn depends on the socio-economic environment where the art is presented and also on the preferences of its viewers. What qualifies as aucitya today might be considered to be anaucitya (inappropriateness, lack of propriety) at a later point in time.

The manner in which aucitya or the requirements of a specific time and place shape movement vocabulary of a dance form is something worthwhile to be studied.

After having analysed the different movement possibilities of every joint of the body, it is necessary to see what combination of those can lead to a beautiful movement of the body as a whole. The charm that the individual movements might not evoke can be perceived from their combination. How does this come about? What does the sum total of the movements of the feet, hands, head and waist amount to a beautiful movement? While analysing this question, the dynamics of sthiti and gati – the constant and the continuous – can be understood.

Nṛtta, after all, is an appropriate blend of static postures and dynamic movements. Studies can be carried out in optimizing the statics and dynamics of dance.

The beauty of all such movements is derived out of recakas. Each artiste gets her individuality that is different from the others because of the recakas she employs. One can only learn through direct experience about the amount of recaka that can be added to the motion of every limb and joint. An exclusive study of the recakas is something that needs to be carried out by a dance aesthetician. Just as gamakas cannot be put in words or pictures, recakas cannot be captured in language and cannot be expressed through static lines and colours. They have to be inculcated by an artiste by constant experimentation and analysing her own experience. It is gamaka in music and recaka in dance that make the arts intangible. It is for this reason that an exclusive study of the recakas must be carried out. This is quite a subtle topic and difficult to deal with. Different forms of dance have evolved because of the presence of different kinds of recakas. They also play an important role in warding off boredom that can potentially arise out of the monotony of movements. It is important to choreograph nṛtta such that it does not repeatedly fall on expected lines and instead provides the spectators with pleasant surprises, thereby adding to the beauty of form. Ānanda-vardhana and other aestheticians suggest that certain twists and turns can be introduced at the end of the verse or in the middle without compromising on any of the aesthetic qualities[1]. It is necessary to examine if such a concept can be adapted in dance as well. It is likely that it will admirably suit dance and add to its beauty. This is an element that stands out in many performances of Mantap Prabhakar Upadhya. He brings in unexpected twists and turns even before the tāla cycle comes to an end. He diverges from the set norm in between and goes into a set of movements that come as a pleasant surprise to the viewers. Because of this, monotony and boredom are hardly seen in his performances. This kind of creativity corresponds to the organic growth of a tree as against the construction of a building brick by brick. The growth of a tree is unpredictable but there is an inherent consistency and beauty in every tree.

We must look into the studies related to regional forms of dance. There is a lot of scope for comparative study and interdisciplinary research. While pursuing studies in this direction, we have to overcome the wrong tendency to discriminate between the ‘folk’ and the ‘classical.’ Various forms of dance that are either ‘folk’ or ‘classical’ are classified under the term ‘deśī’ when they are bound to a specific region. While ‘mārga’ is the commonality inherent in every dance form, ‘deśī’ corresponds to the varieties that can be found in different regions in accordance with their local tastes. From this perspective, what we call ‘folk art’ today largely falls under this category of ‘deśī.’ This is the reality.

While this is the appropriate definition of deśī, dance forms such as Sadir, Kūcipūḍi, Mohiniyāṭṭam, Kathak, and Sattriya are today seen as something different from the so-called ‘folk’ forms of dance. What we have to understand from this classification is the following: A form of dance that is richer in nṛtta and is largely non-referential in nature (i.e., does not narrate a story) is considered to be ‘folk.’ A dance form that includes elements of both nṛtya and nṛtta, comes to be called ‘śāstrīya’ (or classical). When there is a storyline taken up for elaboration accompanied by lyrical music and when the dance form is rich in sāttvikābhinaya, it can be termed as classical – there are many regional forms of classical dance. The forms of dance that we today classify under ‘folk’ are, however, largely devoid of elements of nṛtya and typically do not narrate a story; they include only a few groups of śuṣkākṣaras (syllables used for indicating a tāla cycle or rhythm) and the movements are largely repetitive. Further, since these are the dances of a community, performed in groups, the movements are simple. The spectators are also involved in dancing though they might not be formally initiated into dance. In sum, ‘folk’ dance involves several people and does not necessarily need a connoisseur who sits apart from the performance purely for the sake of enjoyment. In ‘folk’ dance, there is hardly a distinction between a connoisseur and a performer. This is the difference between the regional forms of classical dance such as Sadir, Kūcipūḍi, and Oḍissi on the one hand and Bihu, Tuḻḻal, Somanakuṇita, and Kāṃsaḻè on the other.

There are several acrobatic movements that fill up the folk forms of dance; they possess the capacity to capture the audience in a short span of time. In classical dance too we find some elements, though not as many as in folk dances, that can impress the audience in a short period. There are karaṇas such as Śakaṭāsya, Argala, Gaṅgāvataraṇa, Sūcī, Gaṇḍasūcī, and a few others that are acrobatic in nature; they belong to the set of hundred and eight karaṇas defined by Bharata in the Nāṭyaśāstra, but they are just a handful. Such movements can be found in dance forms such as Gotipuva, Bandha-nṛtya, Somanakuṇita, Kāṃsaḻè, and a few other regional ones.

Therefore ‘deśī’ is a broad term that includes three genres of presentation – the first one has nṛtta as its dominant element with nṛtya being completely absent; the second one has a mixture of nṛtta and nṛtya; the third is when there is a blend of nṛtta, nṛtya, and nāṭya. All ‘folk’ forms of dance, i.e., jānapada-nṛtyas that we see today are predominantly nṛtta-based and fall under the first category. Sadir, Kūcipūḍi, Oḍissi, Kathak, and several other regional ‘classical’ varieties fall under the second category, for they are admixtures of nṛtta and nṛtya. Yakṣagāna, Tèrukkūttu, Bhavai, Cindu, Rāmanāṭṭam, Kṛṣṇanāṭṭam, Kathakalī , and others forms of traditional theatrical forms fall under the third category; they have a good blend of nṛtta, nṛtya, and nāṭya. There is no strict demarcating line separating one from the other – there are only shades of differences. Nṛtta might be found in higher proportion and nṛtya in lesser proportion in one art while it might be the opposite in another. The concept of pradhāna-vyapadeśa (the most significant factor) plays an important role in the śāstras; similarly, in our current discussion, different arts can be placed under specific categories based on the dominant element in them. There is great value given to whatever is present in the largest proportion. For example, we add some jaggery while making sambar but it is classified as a spicy dish, not a sweet one.