-By Dheeraj Raghunandan.
“Last 40 years in theatre for me have meant a weapon of political propaganda and I have used it like that. We have to keep in mind that in order for it to be effective political propaganda, it has to be popular. It has to reach as many people as possible In a country like ours where most of the people cannot read and write.
Theatre might easily build a bridge between us and them, they cannot read but they can come and watch plays. There is this dangerous tendency all o
ver the world to intellectualize theatre. It is nothing but just a bloody waste of time as it will drive more and more people out” - Utpal Dutt.
This statement given by the modern theatre great was greatly revered as India progressed towards making an integrated national theatre to include the voice of regional theatre.
In my opinion, to abide by the words of Utpal Dutt would be to defy the very purpose of art; art is an expression of oneself and every individual possesses an indivisible right over it. They have a right to refrain from delving into social and economic commentary to experiment with the art.
In the 60s and 70s, highlighting the rigid social structure defined by caste and religion could have been frowned upon. ‘Ghashiram Kotwal’ a play by Vijay Tendulkar was mired with controversies and was banned in Maharashtra because a certain political party and a certain community was ‘offended’ by it. (Can’t guarantee that the same won’t happen in today’s time; so much for progress!) In retrospect, the play is considered a success and has a cult following that led to the growth of satire as a norm.
In the same way that no two individuals are alike, no two art pieces produced could be alike. Some may agree with it, some may disagree, some may be taken down a path of nostalgia while some could be repulsed by the mere sight of it. As an audience too, the interpretation of art is different to each.
One cannot determine who would relate to what when it comes to art. A thing relatable to one may not necessarily be relatable to other or maybe with due course of time, the art may grow on one. Best example I could think of is of the great Marathi poet Sant Tukaram. People from all strata relate to his Abhangas. Though interpreted differently by people of different strata, the admiration for his work is constant throughout. It is a great skill to possess where one is able to give multiple layers to their work.
Van Gogh was criticized for his Impressionist style of painting, that blurred the lines of background to focus on what he truly wanted to represent, the society the way he saw, the plight of the peasants, and the flesh trade by the prostitutes. The way art is produced and perceived changes with the passage of time. The time has come for us to embark upon the journey to the other side of the road to acceptance. Things that may seem ‘abstract’ at a certain point in time may become a norm in the future. It is about time to change how we perceive art and especially theatre.
One cannot discard an artist’s creation just because ‘they didn't get it' or they ‘felt offended’.
About Dheeraj Raghunandan.
A theatre artist with his heart leaning towards cinema.
A firm believer of the quote "Faith means not wanting to know what is true."