Let me start with the definition of classical, which says "representing an exemplary standard within a traditional and long-established form or style". The words 'traditional' and 'long-established' stare at me now because they are actually the antonyms of contemporary. But the question we have here is that can this traditional and long-established classical dance be contemporary. I would like to argue, yes, it can be.
People argue that the structure of a classical dance doesn't give space for a contemporary movement. What I think is that the hand gestures or the feet movements or the exercises are only the building blocks or the tools in the hands of the choreographer, what she wants to make out of them is limitless. If I give a flat wooden plank and 4 wooden sticks to a carpenter, it is not necessary that one has to make a table out of it, though that may be the most intuitive object. Similarly, a choreographer doesn't need to follow a pattern or fall into the tradition templates of stories that are conventionally presented, say Radha-Krishna, Shiva, etc.
What I'm trying to say here is that the onus of making a piece contemporary or not is on the choreographer, and not on the form she is following. I believe if your thought process behind the piece is modern, the output will definitely come out to be contemporary. For example, in Indian classical, if you want to show love between Radha and Krishna or you want to praise Lord Shiva or you want to show a woman craving for her lover, first of all you need to ask yourself, are these stories new-age ? Will today's woman, who earns, who takes decisions, who is exposed to world affairs, and who maybe doesn't even believe in love or God, relate to a woman on stage who is only concerned with love and her lover? The same form will become contemporary if you chose to show how a woman is fighting between her career and family or how people are stuck up in a rat-race or some present-day phenomenon.
And even if one wants to or is forced to show the stories of established characters, it can still be treated in a very modern way. A Radha-Krishna piece can be choreographed to show normal human emotions rather than giving them a larger than life treatment. If they love and fight like a contemporary couple, the piece will never look outdated. An excellent example is the recently released Siva Trilogy by Amish Tripathi. All the three books have a freshness and they actually define the latest trend in writing, though the protagonist is Lord Shiva.
Hence my point is that if a choreographer wants to make a piece which looks fresh and appeals to a contemporary audience, the form should never come in their way.
Hence my point is that if a choreographer wants to make a piece which looks fresh and appeals to a contemporary audience, the form should never come in their way.
The second point I want to make is whether classical dance can be contemporary dance itself. Till now I was arguing that classical dance can be presented in a modern way but now I am looking at whether classical dance can itself be modern. Now what exactly is contemporary dance ? Actually there is no definition. It is a representation of what we think in the present time and therefore with time, the definition also keeps changing and never stagnates. I believe, yes,classical dance can be contemporary dance if it is allowed to be. More often than not, the pioneers of classical dance hold onto the structure or the so called rules so tightly that even if one small convention is not followed, they get offended and refuse to call it classical at all. But for me, breaking a few 'rules' to make the classical look fresher is 'contemporizing' the classical dance and not really breaking it.
I think we should believe in evolution and allow a classical dance form to renovate itself. After all, everything needs change. In fact, the classical form Bharatanatyam underwent a complete makeover by Rukmini Devi during the British rule when it was being considered sexual and inappropriate. Wikipedia says "Soon she changed the very face of the dance, by introducing musical instruments, like violin, set and lighting design elements, and innovative costumes, and jewellery inspired by the temple sculpture". What she did was exactly that, modernising the dance form so that it suits the present time so that it is accepted and doesn't become extinct. If changes can be done to save a dance form from getting extinct, changes can definitely be done to retain a dance form and keep it new-age.
Of course critics would argue that the purity of the respective form has been destroyed, but at the same time, it can be seen as decorating the form with new ornaments and renovating it. My point is that it can be done, it should be done and it should be seen as a healthy progression to keep the dance form alive.
I think we should believe in evolution and allow a classical dance form to renovate itself. After all, everything needs change. In fact, the classical form Bharatanatyam underwent a complete makeover by Rukmini Devi during the British rule when it was being considered sexual and inappropriate. Wikipedia says "Soon she changed the very face of the dance, by introducing musical instruments, like violin, set and lighting design elements, and innovative costumes, and jewellery inspired by the temple sculpture". What she did was exactly that, modernising the dance form so that it suits the present time so that it is accepted and doesn't become extinct. If changes can be done to save a dance form from getting extinct, changes can definitely be done to retain a dance form and keep it new-age.
Of course critics would argue that the purity of the respective form has been destroyed, but at the same time, it can be seen as decorating the form with new ornaments and renovating it. My point is that it can be done, it should be done and it should be seen as a healthy progression to keep the dance form alive.
