Trikaala gnyaana: One in which there’s an awareness of the past, present, and the future; Photos: The Hindu Archives and Special Arrangement
In his recent talk on Kannada Theatre and the present, K.V. Akshara said that for an understanding of the present, one needs to envision the past, present and future simultaneously
Theatre person and writer Akshara’s reluctance to travel to Bangalore is a well-known fact in the theatre circles and the huge crowd gathered to listen to him at Suchitra Cinema and the Cultural Academy, as part of their weekly ‘Sahitya Sanje event’, was self-explanatory.
He began his talk titled, ‘Kannada Rangabhoomi Mattu Vartamana’, by stating that the project of understanding the ‘present’ of Kannada theatre, needs an approach akin to the literary exercise of critiquing an essay without knowing its author – with emphasis on the ‘authorlessness’ of the discourse. That’s because of the difficulty in defining ‘Kannada Theatre’: is it theatre in the Kannada language? Or theatre of any language performed by Kannada people? Or theatre within the borders of what is now Karnataka? etc.. As this definition-making is complex, a strictly cross-sectional view of it would be as undesirable as impossible.
Moreover, theatre as a genre has certain disadvantages when it comes to historical analysis as compared to literature, owing to the ephemeral quality of plays; each performance is a text in its own right and any attempt at documentation is a generic transformation. Theatre also exhibits a retroactive attitude in the recognition of greatness. The biggest example would be that of Shakespeare: his name is synonymous with theatrical genius now, but he was barely listed among the better playwrights of his own time! Akshara said that he feared we would pass over deserving talents, in a similar manner, in current times -- vartamana.
The solution he offered for this predicament is trikaala gnyaana – albeit through selective imagination of the multiple possibilities of each time. The closest equivalent for this would perhaps be a ‘diachronic bearing’ to our understanding; one in which there’s an awareness of the past, present, and the future. Here, he mentioned Bhavabhuti’s Uttararamacharita, which would translate literally as ‘the future of Rama’s past’. And it is this paradox that might capture the quality desirable for critique.
Another hurdle to understand the present of Kannada theatre is the problem of received categories: we try to impose derived labels of ‘political theatre’, ‘amateur theatre’ etc. upon spontaneous theatrical manifestations in the subcontinent – which needn’t fit into these strict definitions – and hence fail in their conceptualization. The thousands of theatrical manifestations found here, follow dissimilar evolutionary trajectories as compared to the western history of theatre. Retrofitting derivative labels on them in an attempt at modernization is as incorrect as unjust! For instance, consider the raging debates on whether women should be allowed in theatre, during the early phases of modern theatre in India. Ralapalli Ananthakrishna Sharma, a scholar is known to have remarked, “Where’s the art in women playing women?” Ralapalli suggested that a challenge to talent would be men playing female roles and women playing male roles. In a seminar on Yakshagana, somebody in the audience asked the writer Shivaram Karanth: "Dr. Karanth, why didn’t you get women to play the female roles in Yakshagana?’ ‘In that case, we will also have to bring Rakshasas to play the Rakshasa roles!" he replied in his characteristic candour. A ‘politically correct’ reading of his statement would have grotesque consequences! Another instance is that of the notion of Tirugaata – it is something that has existed in what’s now Karnataka, for ages. Equating it with the relatively new concept of ‘touring’ in western theatre puts it in a theoretical straitjacket!
All these arguments lead to the bigger question of institutionalization: universities, repertories, funding institutions, curatorial departments of ‘culture’ by the government etc.. He insisted that the performing arts are very discursive cultural expressions in the subcontinent, and an attempt at modern institutionalization has had abysmal results! The better artists in India (except for rare names such as Prabha Atre) continue to come from traditional centres of learning, as opposed to departments of performing arts in universities. We should concentrate on according these ‘multiversities’ (borrowing from Claude Alvares' theory) the recognition they deserve, rather than complain about the unidimensional approach of our universities! The need to ‘decolonize’ universities is extremely pertinent, he said.
To sum up, the problem is in our ‘policy’ and our ‘imagination’, argued Akshara. We must look beyond governments and corporates for ‘patronizing’ art.
He recalled examples of successful self-funding experiments in theatre that had, however, been given a wide berth by media. This only highlighted the irresponsibility of citizenry, and critique caught up in the fancifulness of ‘political correctness’. He insisted that a combination of pratibhe and vyutpatti would help pave the way towards the trikaalagnyaana this project needs. A literal translation of these terms as ‘talent’ and ‘erudition’ respectively, would be reductionist and limit the possibilities of these meaning-laden concepts, and he therefore preferred to leave it to the reader’s sense of discernment.
It was a gripping talk.
We try to impose derived labels of ‘political theatre’, ‘amateur theatre’ etc. upon spontaneous theatrical manifestations in the subcontinent – which needn’t fit into these strict definitions – and hence fail in their conceptualization
No comments:
Post a Comment