When space shrinks for writing on the arts

The ongoing controversy about the Madras Music Academy’s decision to confer its Sangeetha Kalanidhi honour upon eminent Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna has been widely discussed in the media. Such discussions and debates energise the public sphere and create awareness. Perhaps this will also lead to finding a new audience for all artists involved in this debate. Not all readers or consumers of media are initiated into the classical arts. Some may thus attempt to look up the artists (and their work) embroiled in the ongoing debate and also educate themselves about their music and points of view. Having said that, I wonder if the controversy is the only occasion when the mainstream media is reminded about the classical arts?
The classical arts should be debated and critiqued just like any other form of art-making or socio-cultural enterprise, but why should a controversy be the only harbinger of such a conversation? The classical arts do not exist in a vacuum. Their history, adaptability, issues of hierarchy, inclusion, or the lack of it, must be widely discussed to create an informed and engaged audience. Tradition, after all, is not static but constantly evolving with time.
Writing on and about the arts has been the biggest casualty in the post-Covid times. Several publications and media outlets have either trimmed their arts pages or completely disbanded such sections. Some moved their art writing entirely online thereby depriving those who read the print edition of such reportage. Increasingly, film-based writing or reporting has come to subsume all forms of art writing. There is very little space for independent writing on the non-film related arts in India. Sadly, art writing has been reduced to an occasional feature, and almost only when an artist receives an award, or her/his centenary is being observed or some such big occasion. The writing is mostly adulatory or biographical, devoid of any critical vocabulary. Concert reviews, the few that appear, are summaries of the performance at best with glib adjectives such as amazing and interesting neither of which helps to understand the presentation or the artist. There is little or no discussion about form, structure or aesthetics which are key to understanding an art form or contemporary work which may have been derived or based on the classical.
Even in such cases when a reportage-based feature appears in the media, a tiny selection of artists tends to dominate. It is not the artists’ fault, of course. Artists cannot be held responsible for their popularity. We also know that popularity and quality of the art presented are not necessarily coterminous.
The media chooses to focus on popular artists because there is an audience interest to know more about their favourite musician or dancer. But the media has another role too – to search for other practitioners across class, caste and gender who may not necessarily be mainstream and platform their stories. This could help to encourage diversity both through profiling artists and presenting their work.
The visual arts still get some attention, but lest we forget, there is big money involved there. What about theatre? For a director or play to be featured, does it need to win an award? Controversies do not sustain an art form or help popularise it. Nor do the works of a select few artists. It can only happen when there is a thriving ecosystem of healthy dialogue and debate in and around the arts.
Kunal Ray teaches literary and cultural studies at FLAME University, Pune. The views expressed are personal