Vyuti, a Bangalore based Bharatanatyam dance troupe headed by Aranyani Bhargav presented their production titled “Questioning Frontality” in Shoonya, Bangalore, last Friday. The piece is a choreographic experiment exploring the relationship between geometry of the Bharatanatyam form and the space in which it is performed. As the name suggests, the spatial set up of the performance dismisses the idea of the front. Going against the grain of a typical classical performance which is flattened to suit a proscenium stage and frontal viewing, “Questioning Frontality” is choreographed to be viewed from any direction and in proximity to the performers themselves. Therefore the set up of this performance is more reminiscent of the temple stage, which would typically involve a square raised platform in the centre and audience in all four directions. Yet, the sequencing of the performance largely follows the classical Margam structure.
The performance opens with a piece called “Viharati”, a tribute to the building blocks of Bharatanatyam. It is a significant departure from the popular opening Pushpanjali which acknowledges the presence of the divine audience by offering flowers to the idol of Nataraja. Viharati, on the other hand demonstrates the different physical (large and subtle) components of the form – the different bhangis, the adavus, the mudras and the neck and shoulder movements. The next piece Allarippu was the most interesting experiment of a basic Margam number. Performed in threes, this piece offered an alternative perspective to a group performance. It seemed to be looking at what would happen if Allarippu were to be performed by three bodies functioning as a single body. Following this was “Antaram”, a choreographic interpretation of Jathiswaram with additional elements of body contact and sharing of body weight. The second half of the performance included a Varnam and the concluding Thillana. Varnam, which was the central piece of the evening was called “Sakhi” which paid tribute to the under appreciated character of Sakhi or the friend who sticks with the heroine in times of all highs and lows.
“Questioning Frontality” is an interesting experiment with a classical form. Though it breaks away from the conventional classical, by taking the form out the proscenium stage and introducing the element of contact, it might be relevant to remember that Bharatanatyam when it became a “hall/proscenium” performance, went through experimentation in the hands of revivalists which was similar in spirit. Rukmini Devi, re- articulated the imagination of a performance in the context of a hall by analysing and codifying the geometry of Bharatanatyam. However, understanding the geometry of the body and the dance, situating it in a hall-like setting and bringing it into a frontal format where audience sits away from the stage was also a part of giving the classical dance a new identity, making it a respectable pursuit by dissociating it from the stigma of being an occupation considered to have fallen from grace. This particular performance by Vyuti Dance Company, though an important attempt, however needs to address its questioning more deeply in the context of this history of spaces where Bharatanatyam has been performed. Does questioning frontality simply imply being able to view the performance without the idea of a frontal seating? Historically, since making the Bharatanatyam format frontal was a part of the larger socio-political move, shouldn’t rejecting or questioning frontality in the context of this tradition also implicate a rejection of the socio-politics of frontal viewing? If not, then what makes viewing a performance non-frontally an important experience in the present times?
One guess could be that by bringing the audience closer to the performers and by introducing the element of touch among the dancers this performance is attempting to subvert the idea of viewership itself and make the experience of engaging with the performance much more visceral.
Richard Shechner in his paper “Rasaaesthetics” explains how in Indian aesthetic traditions the consumption of art is not primarily visual/ocular like in the context of Western traditions but is more gustatory or visceral. However, though bringing the audience closer to stage indicates the performer’s willingness to engage with the audience, throughout the performance one finds the outward gaze of the dancer distant and disengaged, hovering somewhere over the heads of the audience which often marks the experience of watching a performance in a hall. The aspect of touch as well, especially in the piece feels very held back, as if bound by the pressure of strictly not meaning too much.
These are not direct criticisms but some of the possible interpretations of what questioning frontality could have meant in the present context. If the concept of “Questioning Frontality” is addressed more deeply and is allowed to mean more, this performance has the potential to resist, subvert, dismiss some very dominant hierarchies that the practice and performance of Bharatanatyam is fraught with in the present age.
