....
> No matter how many protest, the traditional poetry's time is gone. It can
> and should be preserved. But writing a poem today with the archaic
> language just to suit the meters is a practice for nostalgia's sake. It
> smells like formaldehyde. It has neither relevance nor future.
I think classical forms have both relevance and future, though not
necessarily in exactly the same "bodies." (For example, forces similar
to those that led to the devlopment of deSi chando-forms like aaTaveladi
might lead to the development of other, modern, chando-forms that
include elements of aaTa-veladi along with some innovations.)
But isn't the classical/modern argument in the domain of Telugu poetry
analogous to the similar dichotomies found in other creative endeavors?
Forgetting about Telugu poetry for the moment, one sees this in any
number of creative fields like Arts, Architecture, music etc:
the classical forms are generally not found in modern creations. However,
the departure from classicism is only superficial in almost all such
fields. In any case, it is never total. (To keep things neutral, I'll
try to use only examples from the Western world.)
For example, a great many famous rock-and-roll or jazz artists are also
well-trained classical musicians and composers and it shows in their work.
They are constantly adapting and incorporating classical elements in
their musical ouvre. Similarly in architecture, English poetry etc.
Superficially a modern skyscraper may not bear any resemblance to an
Aztec adobe construction but frequently one finds surprising Aztec
influences (for example) in some modern skyscraper. Nostalgia is not
the only reason for these inclusions; aesthetics and practicality play
a major part as well. In a parallel stream, even the classical-appearing
forms of the art often continue to get developed in their own evolutionary
branches--you will find modernized Southwestern Adobe homes, neo-classical
symphonies etc. all the time.
In some sense, classical forms never become totally extinct to exist only in
Formaldehyde, but rather become a living part of modern creations. This is
a derivation of the idea of "meme" suggested by Richard Dawkins in
"The Selfish Gene"--this is how evolution of ideas and creativity
works, analogous to biological evolution. Classical works will probably
remain the best way to understand the elements of the craft (relevance),
while modern works in largely classical forms will continue to be
created (future.)
At least, I'm convinced this is the way ideas and creative works evolve in
nature. Coming to Telugu poetry, if the notion that classical forms
have neither relevance nor future is indeed widespread, I think that
it indicates either a gap between the reality of modern Telugu
literature and the reading of it (the relevance/future really exist but
we don't think they do) or it it is indeed the case that classical
forms are at a dead end.
In either case, I would conclude that it is an indication that there
is something amiss with Telugu society. My best guess is that such
distortions in interpretation are a byproduct of a society and culture in
transition, struggling to define its social-political-cultural identity,
with the background of a history of socially-sanctioned inequalities that are
coeval with the development and use of classical forms.
Maybe this is just another way of saying, in agreement with Sitaramayya garu,
that classical forms are incompatible with a revolutionary outlook,
a corollary being that loss of a certain amount of valuable memes is
the price extracted by revolution which by definition is a socially
traumatic process. Is this the crux of the classical-modernist argument
with regard to Telugu poetry, then? If so, can we expect that a future
generation will exhibit a greater degree of comfort with the coexistence
of these dichotomies? Or is all this going to be rendered moot by the
impending McDonaldization and Disneyfication of the world?
With regard to the application of revolution as a measure of the worth
of art and literature, let me quote from memory Fazil Iskander, a writer
of the former Soviet Union, which goes something like:"The past is a bill
that history presents to the future," capturing the essence of the principled
conservative's credo--if you are asking me to adopt modernity, convince
me that it is better than what has gone before. The quote is in the
context of the impact of Stalin's collectivization and relocation on
Abkhazia (now in Georgia and recently famous for trying to secede from it
with Russian help) in the post-communist-revolutionary period. Surely
Iskander's words, distilled from the post-revolutionary experience,
are worth pondering over.
My personal views.
Bapa Rao