The appreciation of art

A and I were invited a few days ago to the houses of parliament for a performance of “Maaya” put on by Akademi. Akademi is one of the organizations which does a lot of functions based on Indian culture in the UK; and a good friend of ours used to dance with them as a performer till she went back to India. As such when we were invited we were quite happy to go.

The performance, itself was quite nice. There was first a group piece which was full of energy and then a solo performance. The group piece was very nice to watch, especially as it was not on any stage but just in the middle of the hall. Quite interesting. The solo performance however was different – a more standard on stage performance which was nice…but to a philistine like me seemed like many other performances with no way for me to evaluate it. As we left the hall, I asked A what she thought about it and she said the solo performance was very good- and on being asked what made it good, she told me that one could make out – the way the dancer made her moves, the kind of steps, etc. Of course, A has had training in classical dance as a child whereas I have had none. And that lack of training makes me unable to appreciate or distinguish (at the very least) good from very good – though even I might be able to identify the poor.

But does that mean that in order to appreciate classical art once needs to have a core base of training? If so, is there a point in trying to widen the base of classical art among the general public? And is there a chance that among an audience which does not understand the details even sub standard art can be assumed to be great; merely because it is sold well?

I know very little of art but I realized that this thought can be extended to other forms – which are not pure art but contain a degree of beauty in it – such as many sports. What distinguishes one gymnast from another and why does Nadia Comaneci get a 10.00 while someone else gets a 9.9? The judges probably do understand because they are trained, but as a viewer I can’t make out. Ditto say, for diving. A bad dive is clearly discernible but what distinguishes the good from the brilliant? Is it again, the lack of training in the sport which makes it difficult to appreciate?

On thinking it over a bit more it struck me that there is an area where I can appreciate these differences. Assume a front foot straight drive played past the bowler…or even better, a punch off the back foot past the bowler. Now think of that shot being played by Harbhajan Singh, Virat Kohli and Sachin Tendulkar. Now, even A, who has no interest in cricket, might be able to figure out that Harbhajan’s way to play the shot is not the best but on casual viewing there might be little to choose between Kohli and Tendulkar’s shots. But I know I would go for Tendulkar everytime…as I think would most people who follow the game…but I can’t rationally explain why. There is something about the back lift, the angle at which the bat comes down, the stillness of the head, the depth in the crease from which the shot is played -  all of which go to make Tendulkar’s version of the shot that much more delightful than almost anyone else. But it is impossible to define. Would an angle of 80 degrees of the bat be better than 70 degrees? Would the player’s back foot need to necessarily be more than halfway in the crease? I don’t know - I can’t quantify it. But I know a great punch off the back foot from a good one. And I cannot explain it to someone else who does not know beyond saying –“look at it- it can’t get better”.

Which raises 2 issues – how do I “get it” in cricket but not other areas? And secondly, if after “getting it” I am not in a position to explain it any further then what hope is there for me to be able to “get” things in areas I currently don’t get?

One obvious answer is exposure. But let’s be clear, I have not played cricket at any level worth talking about. The exposure I have had however, is watching it continually and I think, importantly, having it explained to me over and over again on commentary by people who do know about the sport. So, I know the difference between reaching the pitch of the ball and driving in balance as opposed to driving when not to the pitch of the ball and being off balance. Of course, why the former is preferable is not known to me – it just is because anecdotal evidence suggests (which even I can corroborate having watched enough and having been explained often enough about the details) that you have a better chance of succeeding when you are not off balance.

But can the same be extrapolated to other art forms? First, is it really possible to have the same level of explanation provided for a painting or a dance routine without it destroying the piece in itself? Can you imagine someone giving a running commentary on a dance performance or trying to explain why the Sistine chapel is magnificent? And secondly, is it likely to hinder creativity in an area where success is not so clearly defined? It is easy to give hats off to the Dilscoop or the Tendulkar lob over the slips because they routinely score runs while tut-tutting over the reverse sweep because more often than not it leads to disaster. How does one evaluate creativity in an art form when one cannot define the value of that output? Who is it who puts the value – the common man or the connoisseur? And is the common man again in the situation of not appreciating the value because he does not see it or is he being forced to play along lest he look like a philistine. This is like going to a kavi sammelan or mushaira and saying “wah wah” at the end of every couplet irrespective of whether one has understood it or not.

Let me give you an example – Paul Potts! I don’t know how many of you have seen Paul Potts on Britain’s got Talent. If you haven’t then go to youtube and do a search for him. Look at the initial round, the semi final and the final. It is among the finest TV programming you will get to see. The look on Simon Cowell’s face when Paul first tells him he’s going to sing opera is classic. And his dialogue after he finished is also classic (go watch the clip for that). But the reality is that I don’t know the first thing about opera. And I would guess that nor did more than half the audience in the hall and neither did the vast majority of people who voted for Paul. What were they voting on the basis of – that he sang well? How did they know?

Of course, an ideal situation would have been that those who heard Paul Potts in the first round would have gone back and researched on opera and its finer points and been more able to appreciate him in the second round. But I am fairly sure that most people would not have done so. There might be the odd area one wants to explore - for example, over the period from around 2002 – 2006 or so I got fairly interested in Urdu poetry and have read a fair bit of a lot of poets of the last 200 or so years (thank you Nita Awataramani for a lot of this. Also Abhay Avachat and RMIM). I do have a better understanding of poetry now and a view of my own…though it is far from complete. But it is by far an exception and I have never really had an inkling of trying to develop an understanding of any other art form. I too watched Paul Potts (on you tube) and not once did I read up much more about opera.

So, then are we consigned to a fate where we must just go along with a minority (of experts) on all things artistic – without really knowing our own mind? Or alternately reject all things artistic as not rational enough – thereby depriving ourselves of something which clearly has some value. Frankly, I have no answer. Clearly, exposure to art from a young age is critical. But I am not sure that simply exposure is good enough. Not that exposure is not important but it does need to go a bit beyond that. I believe there are things like art appreciation classes but I have no idea what they do. I do know however that I have never come across one of these and that is unfortunate. Events like Maaya and organizations such as Akademi are doing a great job in creating the exposure to art. I think the next challenge they have to face is how to move from awareness to understanding among the common population. I have no idea how that can be done but I hope they think about it. In the meantime people like me will often be just left saying “wah wah” without a full understanding.

Unless, of course, Tendulkar is playing a straight drive – when it will come from the heart!