TRADITIONAL VALUES IN ART AND LITERATURE

DR. D. VENKATAVADHANI, M.A. (Hons.), Ph. D.

Professor of Telugu, Osmania University.

The radical form of any tradition will generally be the result of various experiments Experiments that stand the test of time, in due course, crystallise into a tradition which gradually enters the tissues of a nation and wields enormous influence on all its actions. It is not easy to escape that influence however much one may try to do so. But new experiments will be made now and then to amend or replace the old traditions. In spite of such revolts, as we may call them, remnants of the old traditions will continue to exist as people cannot completely forget them. Such traditions be found in every field of life including those of art and literature.

According to Indian tradition, arts are enumerated to be sixty-four and their names are given in the Kaamasootras of Vatsyayana and some other works. On the basis of their intrinsic values arts can be divided into two main classes, viz., the useful arts and the pleasurable arts. Making of garlands, alchemy, cooking, etc., belong to the former category and painting, sculpture, dancing, music, poetry, etc., belong to the latter. The useful arts conduce to physical happiness and tend to make life more pleasant, whereas the pleasurable arts lead their votaries to a state of ecstacy which is equal or second only to Brahmaananda. These are generally called the fine arts whose main purpose is to create delight that is entirely different from ordinary joy resulting from physical happiness.

The difference between these two categories of arts is obvious. Useful arts give delight by satisfying physical wants, their quantity decreases as they are being enjoyed, the amount of their appeal is proportionate to their quantity, and they can please only a few. The nature of the pleasurable arts is quite different. They give pleasure without cause, they get more intensified as they are being enjoyed, they please many simultaneously, however small their size may be and their appeal is universal. In spi1e of such differences these categories seem to be inter-related and to have flourished side by side in the early stages.

At present we are concerned with the pleasurable arts alone. They comprise sculpture, painting, music, dance and literature. They are grouped into one category as their aims and objectives are the same. They give pleasure that makes men oblivious of everything else. The experience of this pleasure is elevating and indefinable. When one gets into that mood, one feels as if something is shining before his eyes and as if something is entering his heart and as if something is spreading all over his limbs. In fact the soul is nothing but pure joy. But it is surrounded by the sheath of ignorance and only when this is removed, it shines in its true colours. Fine arts remove that sheath when seen or heard and fill the hearts of people with divine bliss.

A certain amount of imitation is seen in all the fine arts. Original things of nature can never become things of art. Take for example a beautiful rose. When we look at it, we feel delighted but that delight is worldly and not aesthetic pleasure. But when a painter paints a rose, or when a poet describes it in a poem, we feel the exalting pleasure which is called Aananda. The greater and the closer the imitation of the artist, the greater will be the pleasure we derive from his art. On the ability to imitate the thing of nature well, depends the genius of the artist, Imitation of other’s art is different from the imitation of things of nature which is essential for any form of art.

When a poet wants to describe a battle, he tries to delineate a real battle that he has seen. He creates an atmosphere of battle by describing the various units, their movements, their weapons and the streams of blood flowing from their bodies and recreates the scene before the eyes of the readers. The skill of his description can be judged by how closely and correctly he represented the real battle. If he does not do so he cannot please the readers in spite of sweet words and beautiful metres. In the same way if an actor wants to play the role of a king he must try to imitate the dress and speech of a real king. Otherwise, he cannot create the feeling of the king in the minds of the audience. Therefore imitation plays an important part in the creation of any art form and without that, artists cannot succeed in producing the desired effect in the minds of the people.

With regard to the people who want to enjoy the art, it is essential that they should not forget that the piece of art before them is an imitation and not reality. If they take it to be real, they experience fear, anger, sorrow and such other feelings but not pleasure. This can be testified by actual experience. When we look at two soldiers fighting with deadly weapons in their hands bent on killing each other, we tremble with fear and naturally try to avoid that horrible scene by going away from that place. But when a poet describes the same scene in beautiful verses, we not only get pleasure but wish to re-read the passage a number of times. The reason for this is that we know that it is merely an imitation but not reality. Panditaraja says, “This is the extraordinary power of the nature of poetry. Sorrow and other feelings, unpleasant though they naturally are, give extreme pleasure when they are depicted in it. The pleasure derived from poetry is really peculiar.” This holds good in the case of other arts also. Scenes that fill us with sorrow, aversion and fear in nature give us excessive pleasure when they take the form of art. When a dog barks at us when we are walking along a road, we run away from it lest it should bite us. If a man learns to imitate the barking of a dog and displays that art, we go near him, hear it, and enjoy it. If the man is not seen, we mistake his imitation for real barking and do not think of it at all. In the same way we naturally try to go away from donkeys, pigs and other detestable creatures as we do not like them but when they are seen in the shape of paintings, we buy them, put them in our pockets and do not like to part with them. This clearly shows what placce imitation occupies in the form of art and how it begets pleasures.

Among fine arts, literature occupies a very prominent place. It is easily the best among them, judging from its inherent capacity to give us ecstatic pleasure. Fine arts fill the soul with pleasure through the instrumentality of the senses. From the point of view of this instrumentality they can be divided into three categories–visible, audible and double. Sculpture and painting please us through our eyes, music through our ears and literature through both. We can hear poetry when it is sung, see it when it is written and printed. That is why this is called double art or Ubhayakala. The nature of the double art is complete in the drama which is the best form of literature. It can both be heard and seen when represented on the stage.

Painting can represent only partial view or perspective of an object or scene but not the whole. A painter observes a certain thing and represents the perspective that attracts him much. But things and scenes will not be static. They will be ever changing. If their change is to be represented, the painter has to paint a series of paintings which is rather impossible.

Sculpture resembles painting in many ways. It is also a visible art and represents a single pole. But it can display the complete view of anything as we can see all the sides of it. Unlike painting sculpture can be felt by the touch also. We can feel the contours of a statue by touching it. In the same way painting has got an advantage over sculpture. It lies in the use of colours by the help of which it can perfectly display abstract things like sunrise, sunset and other beauties of nature. It is difficult to represent such abstract beauties in sculpture.

Music is an audible art as ill pleases through the ear. Its attraction lies in its capacity to create a harmony of sounds which gives pleasure. In a way it can be compared with Nrutta which depends on rhythm. In the power of attraction it does not lag behind other arts. Charming harmony of musical sounds attracts even animals, infants and snakes. It seems, arts appealing thro the ear attract more than others and music holds testimony to it.

Generally, people do not distinguish between Nrutta, nrutya natya. Nrutta is mere rhythmic movement of limbs. It is said to be Taala layaasraya, in addition to this movement Nrutya expresses the feeling also and comprises a certain amount of imitation and thus gains advantage over Nrutta but it is inferior to Naatya which represents the emotions and the sentiments and is called Rasaasraya, Dasarupaka clearly says that Nrutya is quite distinct from Natya. In Nrutya there is the Abhinaya or action of the limbs alone whereas in Naatya is Abhinaya of the Sattvic feelings. Another distinction between Nrutya and Naatya made by the commentator of Prabha is that Nrutya is merely visible and in no way audible as it lacks the element of poetry. Painting and sculpture represent only the static pose whereas Nrutya can represent the dynamic pose and surpasses both of them in this respect.

Poetry of which Rasa or sentiment is the soul appeals through the ear. It has got the accessory of language which no other art possesses and with its help it can bring home to the minds of readers anything or any scene. The characteristics of music, painting and Nrutta are happily blended in it. Words, meaning and the rhythm of metre are the three qualities by which it attracts people and gives them indescribable pleasure.

Naatya is drama which can be said to be a composite art. It contains all the characteristics of all the fine arts and pleases the ear as well as the eye. Things and scenes that appeal to the ear and, through it, to the mind in mere poetry and literature appeal to the physical eye also in the drama as it can represent them not only by word but also by action. Bharata extols it by saying, ‘There is no wisdom, skill, education, art, concentration or work that is not to be found in dance.” He further observes: “I have created dancing which is full of various feelings, various situations and imitation of the conduct of the world.” In another place he points out: “In this dancing, the imitation of the seven Dwipas is established.”

Numerous works have been written in Sanskrit on poetics and all of them accord the highest place to Kaavya or literature. It is singled out for its special fitness to mould the individual on the proper lines. The values that are ascribed to Kaavya are many. Bhamaha says that a study of a good Kaavya gives skill in Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha as also in arts and literature and bestow fame and pleasure. Mammata observes that study of literature brings fame, fulfilment, proficiency in worldly knowledge, wellbeing by averting calamities, spiritual bliss, and gives guidance as would come from one’s beloved. Some of these values are purely material and some spiritual. Mammata adds pleasant suggestive instruction also to it. Other rhetoricians agree with Mammata in this respect and reiterate his views. Of these two values, pleasure and instruction, pleasure is given the first place and instruction is subsidiary to it. Abhinava Gupta clearly says, “Though literature gives knowledge, pleasure is more important. Otherwise, how does a Kaavya differ from the Vedas and the Puranas which are respectively compared to rulers and friends? Preference should be given to pleasure alone as it is the highest value that can be derived from it.” Next comes instruction which may be there or not, but whose presence undoubtedly exalts the Kaavya. Anandavardhana observes that dance was created by the great Bharata mainly for giving instruction to the ordinary people. There are some who opine that pleasure alone is the ultimate and highest value and it is only unwise people who consider that instruction alone is the aim of the Rupakas. Here the word Matra indicates that he has no objection if it is given secondary importance, and such other maxims give some importance to instruction also. It may be said in this connection that a Kaavya need not necessarily preach morality but it should never mislead, if it supports by glorifying immorality. If it supports immorality it disturbs the world and ideals like Viswasreyah Kaavyam will become misnomers.

The Vedas, Smritis and the sciences command despotically like kings and their command is inviolable. The puranas teach the virtues like friends and guide the people towards the proper way. The Kaavyas like good housewives teach the people in a charming and suggestive way and try to mend their defects if any. Thus charm and suggestivity distinguish the Kaavya from other classes of literature. They may impart knowledge and instruction but that cannot give pleasure to the same extent as a Kaavya.

How people derive and experience pleasure from fine arts is a complicated psychological process. Bharata was the first to enunciate the Rasa Sutra. The words Samyoga and Nishapatti are vague and have given rise to different interpretations. Bhatta Lollata believed that the hero himself enjoys the Rasa. Sri Sankuka maintained that the actor enjoys it; Bhatta Nayaka expressed that it is the audience that enjoy the Rasa. Abhinava Gupta also held the same view but explained it eliminating the flaws in the theory as enunciated by Bhatta Nayaka. He said that Vaasana permanently dwelling in the hearts of the Sahridaya, will be awakened and will make him experience the Rasaananda. Bhatta Touta expressed the view that the hero, the poet and the spectator undergo the same experience. It is true only to a certain extent as the poet and the Nayaka get feelings connected with the situation and not always pleasure. The spectator always experiences pleasure as in his case the Vibhaavas and not Loukika or worldly as they belong to the world of Kaavya.

When once Rasananda is tasted it provokes people to experience Brahmaananda also which is the highest kind of spiritual bliss. If people are wise they should try to derive it but if they do not do so it means that they have not made good use of the pleasurable experience which they underwent while enjoying the fine art.

The spectator or Sahridaya is one whose heart is similar to that of the hero and the poet, that is, who is capable of ready emotional response. Abinava says in the Lochana that by studying or witnessing a Sraya Kaavya, Drisya Kaavya the heart of the reader or the spectator will become free from the knowledge of eternal things and shines like a mirror. Then the Vibhaavaas described in the kaavya directly reflect in it, as a result of which they become one with the hero and derive pleasure that is called Rasa. Bhaavaprakaasa says that spectator is the best who when the hero rejoices, sorrows, flares up, or fears, feels likewise. When a Sahridaya looks at the Vibhaavaas described in Kaavya, the Satva in him that is untouched by Rajas and Tamas is enkindled and by that the permanent feeling lying dormant in the heart will be awakened and makes him experience indefinable pleasure.

The objectives of human life according to Indian tradition are four, viz, Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha. Our forefathers were not satisfied with mere worldly attainments. In everything they did, they tried to achieve something connected with the other world. That is why they give equal importance to the two pairs Artha and Kaama and Dharma and Moksha. Fulfilment of mere Artha and Kaama without Dharma was never their aim. They wanted to blend well the worldly and the spiritual achievements and thus construct a bridge as it were between the heaven and the earth. The same predilection can be seen in all the works they did, in all the ideals they formed and in all the thoughts they expressed and the field of the fine arts offers a good example for their views in this respect. For the harmonious blend of the four objectives art is given primacy of attention.

Bharata says that dancing preaches Dharma to those who are unhappy, gives recreation to those who are tired, gives wealth to those who are depressed and peace of mind to those who are practising austerities. This applies equally to all other arts. They enable the man and lift him above the boundaries of this world giving him a foretaste of the spiritual bliss that a blessed few can derive in this world. That is why the progress of arts in any nation is a sign of its enlightenment, culture and spiritual development which leads to peace and prosperity.

Back