Art-less
May 3rd, 2010
It bothers me to think that for all the mystique and hazy beauty that is often endowed to 'Indian art' by nostalgic emigrants and westerners too eager to latch on to the infinite ocean of eastern wisdom, it is actually quite a barren field where new ideas almost never come along and old ones are repeated ad-infinitum. As an example, although Indian classical music is richer and deeper than I would ever have the time and expertise to explore, the truth is that barring a few raagas here and a few innovations there, it has remained almost unchanged through the centuries. Part of the reason for this, I feel, is exactly the same reason why it has the mystique that it has. Because its learning is so regimented and because it has no written notation, it is extremely hard for a layman to appreciate it. This removes Indian classical music to an entirely different plane, one where the common man cannot even hope to reach. This lends a great mystique to it but, unfortunately, it also prevents it from reinventing itself. You can have a beautiful little walled garden for yourself, but sadly, without the forces of creation which come from openness and irreverence, it will remain just that and nothing more. This is probably a reason why such a huge divide exist between high and low music in India with classical music sitting in its ivory tower, unscratched and smug, and popular music, mediocre at best, catering to the taste of the billion who are completely unable to bridge the gap between the two. Music in the Western society, on the other hand, has undergone tremendous changes. From the time when perfections were sought after and Bach produced his masterpiece studies in the mathematical harmonies of music to the acceptance of dissonances and complete ambiguity in what can be considered music - with a plethora of experiments and changes in between - it's a story of the continual asking of questions and never having too much respect for tradition. As a result, the sheer number of forms that theoretically exist lends almost a smooth and unbroken transition from high music to popular music. It is easier to get inspired when you realize that the rules of the game are not sacrosanct - something that is lacking in India classical music.
It might have to do with culture and hopefully that will change with economic prosperity and people would become more rebellious, more questioning, and more intolerant of authority and propriety. I feel that within appropriate laws and freedoms, it's a good thing. It encourages dialogue and makes one rethink some of our most fundamental assumptions. Art gets benefited from such a blasphemous attitude by becoming more cutting edge, more vibrant, and more in tune with the times. Although I'm not very sure of what I mean by being in tune with the times! Marcel Duchamp created the Fountain (a urinal) in 1917 and termed it art. John Cage created 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence as a musical piece in 1952. Jackson Pollock's brand of abstract expressionism lived in the 60s. Schwitters wrote the sound poem Ursonate in the 20s. I don't know what form cutting edge art, which by definition rebels against the existing systems, takes in the contemporary society when everything that there was to rebel against was already exhausted by the end of the first half of the 20th century! A friend once told me that postmodern art is that which takes itself too seriously. I don't completely agree but that's a line of thought I'll save for later. For now I'll live with the solace that with the disapointment that is inherent in the current non-experimental nature of Indian art, comes the consolation that there is a lot left to explore.
I would rather disagree that Indian classical music hasn't evolved through centuries. From what I understand, before independence different royal houses across the Indian subcontinent promoted and patronized their musical gharana, each of which evolved independently, so it is not the same music that has played through centuries. Several maestros have enriched these gharanas and added new edge to the Indian classical music.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that things haven't changed that dramatically as in the western hemisphere, and there are good reasons for that:
1. We Indians hate documentation. So, the music was studied only through oral discourse, which implied you can't become a maestro living in oblivion.
2. As with everything else, these gharanas had ingrained nepotism and it was hard for an outsider to join the gharana. Therefore, there was no free lancing, like Beethoven composing music for different royal families.
3. There is hardly any interaction between different gharanas.
4. After independence, being a third world country, music was the last of our priorities. There were no patrons, and no one bothered to make musical IITs.
Unfortunately, unlike painting, I see a rather bleak future for Indian classical music, despite the economic prosperity. It has neither made in roads to the popular culture, nor to the upscale culture like modern art. As it is hard to make a living for a mediocre classical musician, I see it reaching the stature of Sanskrit, another "great" Indian heritage, which we will neither appreciate, nor understand.
Maharaj some very good points. On a side note I think you'll find this interesting,
http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html