Kalidas, the great Sanskrit poet, they say, was very market savvy. On his way to the court of Vikramaditya, he would stop in villages and hamlets. He would be asked to perform and he would sing bawdy songs, similar to today’s item numbers, to the delight of his audience. But in the king’s court, he would sing the most polished verses with the most sophisticated vocabulary, figures of speech, meter, melody and metaphor. When asked why, he said, “Nautanki is for the masses craving instant gratification. Natyashastra is for the patient aesthete, the connoisseur, the rasik; their numbers are very few.”
Nautanki responded to popular forces, Natyashatra aspired for perfection not popularity. Nautanki spoke to the lowest common denominator, and avoided making too much demand on the emotion or the intellect. Natyshastra sought the subtle, spoke to the soul, and demanded a lot from the audience. Nautanki pleased the tired flesh after a day’s work. Natyashastra sought to address the questions of the soul. Nautanki took us towards Prakriti, connecting with our natural instincts. Natyashastra strove to take us towards Sanskriti, towards the sophistication and nobility that humanity is capable of.
For centuries, both flourished. Each one had its place. Each one had its relevance. Nautanki thrived in bazaars and Natyashastra in temple compounds and royal courts and the courtyards of noblemen and courtesans. But in the 20th century, the rise of Communism, led to attacks on the Natyashastra for being snobbish, arrogant, Brahmanical, pandering to upper class hegemony. It became noble to focus on the masses, to democratize the arts. The 20th century also saw the rise of Capitalism, where market forces determined which art would survive. Considering its mass base, Nautanki would clearly win. So both ideology and economics, have put Natyashatra on the backfoot. The patronage is gone. And only the very determined survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment