Do traditional art forms still have an important function today or do you think that new media are the most significant art forms today?

When we talk of the ‘traditional art forms’ versus ‘today’s art forms’, it is first of vital importance to understand what we mean by these terms. So when one says traditional art forms, what is ‘traditional art’ or rather, what is tradition? Tradition is not a fossil that is buried under innumerable layers of time; I think tradition is a living thing which flows across and along the waters of time. The difference between History and Tradition has to be understood well. While History is dead and yet surrounding us even today by its after-effects and consequences, tradition is living with us. As we can easily detach ourselves from history, we are very much a part of tradition. We cannot detach from tradition because tradition is so much a part of culture that it evolves and changes with changing time. So in a way, what we do today as art is also ‘traditional’ in a different sense of the term though. We are in a phase of rediscovering ourselves and with open economies and globalisation, there is a lot of over exposure and infiltration of influences, but from all those, we take only those that appeal to us. Our sensibilities still have some canons or frameworks that we refer to. So ‘that’ that we choose becomes a part of our culture and therefore it is a tradition in making. And then, the issues, priorities and focus may change but the basic intention of all arts in essence does not change so much. And yet the approach to it changes drastically over changing time, ideologies and beliefs.

Like in the earlier times, all arts were much more interconnected by the canonical structures. Today as artists try to defy or move beyond these canons, and search for more meaning outside these collective beliefs or structures, he becomes more individualistic and in isolation with himself. This leads to a fragmentation of the holistic view that is shared not just amongst the artist of a particular art form but across art forms. I believe all art forms influence, enrich and grow from each other. There is a very strong and interesting thread that underlies and connects all of them. Like for e.g. the poetic texts in ancient India have shared so much with all other art forms like architecture, sculpture, music, dance and theatre. They exchange so much within each other that it becomes almost impossible to separate them or study them in isolation. Today that thread is getting thinner and fragile and some work totally out of these connections. And yet I feel there is a larger consciousness which works at a macro level that largely connects and affects our thoughts, beliefs and inclinations. With globalisation, the technology and availability of materials as well as ideas, the art may have become uniform in its expressions in which trap, the smaller communities and cultures didn’t fall into, but that’s but natural.

New media is something that is available to us today. Had it been available back in last century, artists then, would definitely have used it! More than the content, it just becomes a tool. When in the jadupatua paintings, artists had turmeric paste and tamarind seeds, goat hair brushes and materials of the like, artists used that and created their stories, their art forms. Now with new media and technology that we have an access to, artists are using that to express themselves. So there is no big deal as such. What else can happen if not this?

The import functions of the traditional art forms today are influenced more by their antique value or out of the awe for the past rather than their artistic value. This should not be the case though. It should also be as critically seen as we see any work of contemporary art. We should understand the social structure and time and region in which that work of art was created and understand how the artist must have responded in those set of situations that he was in.

The above discussion was based more on the visual arts, but when we talk about other art forms like music and dance, especially in India, these traditional art forms are still in practice. Though much of them might be lost, still we have so much that we have preserved and followed. These art forms have reached us today because of the strict adherence to the canons and passing them on orally in Guru-shishya parampara. I feel that though it is inevitable to change the art form with changing times, it is of crucial importance to understand what and why the canons talk about certain things. The nature of Indian milieu is that we don’t have a tradition of analysing, critiquing or documenting things. Our works have to be experienced more than analysed. They are based on some intrinsic human values and behaviours and so they still are perfectly relevant even today. And with the changing understandings and changing issues we do enhance them, modify them and make so called ‘fusion’ versions. And as long as we don’t temper with the inherent values of these art forms, I feel it is perfectly fine to play around with traditional forms and evolve and add to them. But this needs lot of commitment and rigour in the sense that we have to understand the canons to move beyond them. And like west, we do not have readymade material that we can read and move on. And at the same time, in this fast age we do not have time and commitment to sit, contemplate and experience these art forms in their fullest meanings. So as we maintain some layers of it, we lose on some layers. But then, we also add some layers to it! So in that sense, the traditional art forms like music, which are so inclusive in their nature can easily take in the new media within its folds only to grow and enrich its layers and expressions. But even at the risk of isolating the new media as something external and alien to the tradition (which it is not!), the traditional art forms, as they are, are still perfectly relevant and their import value remains intact.

I also feel that Indian way of doing things was always layered, complex, multifaceted and inclusive in nature, so in a way, the Indian approach has always been very post-modern. Hence may be, today when Aristotle might not make complete sense, the Darshan shastras or even say the Natya shastra would make complete sense. I feel we have come back one full circle with the human consciousness revolving from spirit in the primitive traditions, to mind and heart in the pre-medieval and medieval ages to matter in the renaissance and industrial and modern age to again the spirit in the post-modern era. This is largely western cycle which intersected with the Indian canvas only with colonialisation. So we are also having our own rides and influences and now the so called western scholars come here to trace and document our heritage and we go out to learn their sense of aesthetics and art! We will also finish our full circle and then embark on the next cycle only to come back to zero again!