Angashuddhi in real life

Three months ago, I was introduced the possibility of there being a  'grand theory of aesthetics' by, of all people, a linguistics professor and a couple of fellow dancers. What does this mean? It means a common parameter by which something can be judged as aesthetically pleasing or not. O yea, megalomania at its maddest.

Now, its a common malady in these democratic, first ammendment days, when freedom of expression means that anyone can express themselves in just about anyway and say- I think THIS is beautiful, YOU just dont get it.  

You just dont get it is a creative safe zone for most artists, a nice warm blanket to crawl under, when the big ugly world says in bold letters, you suck! 

Well, what they're actually saying is that 'your work doesnt do a thing for us'. This is really crucial feedback. If you're making something for the world outside, you want it do something for them. Make them, laugh or cry or think. Entertain, educate, stimulate, bore, scare. Something.

But what differentiates, lets take dance in this case, a good piece from a bad one? A good dancer from an amateur? Preference is different- some people like pop & lock, some people like ballet and no matter what you do, their preferences aren't really going to change all that much. People instinctively relate to art forms when they have had some sort of cultural initiation to it. We've all been initiated to American pop music, but there might be a subset of people who can also appreciate ghazals or  South Indian street music and can relate to it as much as they do to Akon (really? who are these people?)

So now what am I saying? That there is a quality in any art form which allows even to the uninitiated to distinguish good art from bad. A low quality javanese dance performance, would make itself obvious, even to a crowd of Japanese tourists. They would say 'ah, ah!' about the costumes and the gamelan sounds, but it wouldn't really do anything for them. On the other hand, noone at an Andrea Bocelli concert, even opera haters forcibly tied to a chair nailed to the ground, would come out indifferent. 

So whats the answer? Surprisingly, the consenses, after running through a myriad possible criteria to judge artistic quality, was that good art is deliberate art. Art that is created with the awareness that it is being created. Movements with motive and a clear vision of its goal. Art with a point, any point, even the perfectly valid point of pointlessness, to make.

In the sense, deliberation begins before the movement is created and continues after it ends, the end point being the reader/receiver/audience/spectator. Good art takes the act of witnessing into account. It takes the consumer into account. 

No, not sell out. Noone said sell out here. 

This doesn't mean good art no longer permits the impulsive flourishes and curlicues of the artist- no thats not what I mean. If my intent is to create good Rococo, then every ornate, frivilous sweep of shell, dragon and reed should be deliberate, so even the die-hard minimalist may appreciate my intent to celebrate excess.

Even the accidental beauty of chance, incorporated with intention, has a point to make. Like bleeding water colors or improv-acting.

In other words, good aesthetics implies clarity of communication, which in turn means a clarity of expression right down to the tiniest indivisible unit. Its so organic- the seemingly chaotic universe is an elegant dance of atoms. 

You know, its like all those times, when your father used to holler over the pounding sound of U2's 'Elevation' (I'm from a small town okay? U2 was the loudest it ever got at my place.)

'Whats all that noise?'
And you said, ' Its not noise papa, its awesome!'

And if he listened to it twice, he'd know it was awesome too.