why should bharatanatyam be a costly art to practise

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 11 Jan 2009, 17:25

manikand28 · Post by **manikand28** » 14 Jan 2009, 03:50

can you elaborate, what and how you mean by costly, in US or India? tuition/practice/dress/arangetram etc?

please remember time is money too, and you can equate time to money or money to time,

ardhanariswar · Post by **ardhanariswar** » 14 Jan 2009, 07:26

Assuming saramati means money, I think there should be a cost associated with learning any sort of art form. That give and take needs to be there so students will understand the there's a value to it and will work hard and give it their best effort since they are giving up something.

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 14 Jan 2009, 16:55

As musicians there are also costs such as instruments, saris (for females) and kurthas (for males), payment to accompanying artistes, etc. For a dancer, if a CD is used then the costs of singer, nattuvangam and instruments are reduced

ardhanariswar · Post by **ardhanariswar** » 15 Jan 2009, 11:40

saramati wrote:no, it is not the cost of learning the art. When you start performing dance, there is always a money cost attached to it in terms of the costumes, singer, nattuvangam and instruments. whereas when you are a musician, it is not so.

C'est la vie. You aren't going to get these things for free.
But there are cost efficient ways. In terms of costume women can't really skimp. Art silk look's cheap on stage in my opinion. I think its possible to get minimally stitched sari style costumes (used by kalakshetra) which seem simple, dunno if its cost efficient. For men, wrapping a sari as a dance dhoti is far simpler and cheaper than getting it stitched into a costume. In terms of jewelry, simplifying the pieces and/or removing certain pieces (ie head set or long necklace) is another way to save.
I can't really think of anything cheaper than compiling a CD though.

Bharatanatyam doesn't need to be a costly art to practice. It only is so because people make it to be a whole glamorous thing. Aharya abhinaya is an integral part of dance, true. But that doesn't equal wearing full out bridal regalia and expensive saris. I respect the religious and symbolic connotations with it, but I also respect a dancers devotion to their art and making due with their resources.

You can't compare dancers with musicians. They are two completely different professions/art forms.

natyasri123 · Post by **natyasri123** » 19 Jan 2009, 12:10

more so it becomes difficult when u attend festivals. like natyanjali in chidambaram and thanjavur has live music. now taking the singer and nattuvangam, musicians(in tanjore they help u with mrudangam and violin) and their travel expenses etc. u are bankrupt as u'd have already paid a hefty sum to u r teacher for the classes. i am considering forgoing one such festival- natyanjali, as i dont have money to take live music with me. now i feel wats the use of so much of learning and preperation- all i did this for natyanjali and for itself i cannot go as i am bankrupt.

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 27 Jan 2009, 20:59

correct me pl, if i am wrong..... for carnatic music concerts we pay to listen. Is it the same way for bharathanatyam performances?

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 27 Jan 2009, 21:16

saramati wrote:correct me pl, if i am wrong..... for carnatic music concerts we pay to listen. Is it the same way for bharathanatyam performances?

Yes - and sometimes the tickets are more expensive...

PUNARVASU · Post by **PUNARVASU** » 27 Jan 2009, 23:22

saramati wrote:correct me pl, if i am wrong..... for carnatic music concerts we pay to listen. Is it the same way for bharathanatyam performances?

Yes and No-we pay(Yes); to listen(No, to see).

Some times when the music is so good we listen too.

manikand28 · Post by **manikand28** » 29 Jan 2009, 04:41

Apart from money point of view, the teachers seem very eccentric and erratic at best, Are most art teachers arrogant and rude? Why they cant teach art forms in a pleasant way? Esp in california, even teachers who are supposed to be best, are considered very exxcentric and rude to kids who are 10 years of age.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 29 Jan 2009, 08:01

manikand28 wrote:Are most art teachers arrogant and rude? Why they cant teach art forms in a pleasant way?

No - not every one is...just the ones not cut out to be teachers! Some are very nice!

cienu · Post by **cienu** » 29 Jan 2009, 12:15

manikand28 wrote:
Why they cant teach art forms in a pleasant way? Esp in california, even teachers who are supposed to be best, are considered very exxcentric and rude to kids who are 10 years of age.

Agree with Ravi.

However sometimes teachers are "rude" to students, especially those whom they think can be pushed to higher levels. Parents need to be a little away from the actual class. Subsequent feedback from children has to be weighed against their progress.

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 29 Jan 2009, 19:32

i also fully agree with the view point of teachers being rude. practically speaking, kids who are about 10 to 15 years of age, attend dance class after school hours, which means the energy and enthusiasm levels would be put to test and stretched long. We hear of teachers
bad mouthing the hapless kids, make them cry their hearts out, shame them and enforce strict discipline. Art should be taught in a relaxing manner, afterall that is the very purpose of art. however, a mild measure of discipline and strictures are necessary.

shridevi · Post by **shridevi** » 04 Feb 2009, 21:17

the art of bharatanatyam excels in an integrated form. the artist can excel only if she is well trained in music ,rhythm,and a knowledgeof sanskrit & telugu. unless she is trained in these forms the art will hold appreciation.hence it is a costly art.

ardhanariswar · Post by **ardhanariswar** » 05 Feb 2009, 02:06

Its difficult to take a side, for me at least.

In India and abroad, teaching bnatyam has become very commercial and profitable. Kids are sent in groups by mothers who used to have fantasies of becoming glamorous dancers themselves, but married and had kids instead. Obviously the teacher (whether she's knowledgeable or not) knows that these kids don't really give a darn and teach them half-heartedly. The kids' mothers who keep pushing for the child to learn more items and more advanced items don't realize that the learning process takes a lifetime and the pace at which one learns pieces is by no means a level of a dancer's proficiency (but maybe rather their ability to quickly memorize and execute steps). As a result, the 'arangetram' became a graduation, and dance lessons stop. Now apparently these kids get the idea that once they complete their arangetram, they can start teaching.

I think eventually there will be a renaissance of sorts where people will strive to improve the standards and discern between those who are serious, and those who aren't. And by serious I don't mean just those who take it up as their sole profession, but anyone who gives the art form their valuable time, effort, and commitment and are passionate.

To these people, art is not just a hobby. I hate the word very much, really. Art is a way of life, and as corny as it sounds, its absolutely true.
Going back to my point, everyone will find ways to make art happen. Even in the poorest regions in Africa, people still find ways to create beauty in their lives. Whether or not you wear a gorgeous stitched costume, rent a fancy hall, book renowned musicians, or cater tons of food, your dance will outshine these frivolous embellishments. Yes its nice to have those things, but the focus will remain on you and your dance alone.