A
reader, while studying a text, feels thrilled, transported, at varying
intervals. This experience involves two things: the first is beauty caused by the creative use of
language, known as aesthetic beauty and
the second is pleasure caused by the beauty known as aesthetic pleasure which
is experienced by the reader. The reader experiences this pleasure
in two ways – haphazardly as a layman has it and methodically as a trained man
does. The former has its worth as vague or even confused while the latter
remains accounted for. It is the latter mode which requires aesthetic tools to analyze and relish literature.
Some
scholars hold that to relish literature, there is no need of aesthetic
tools. They
raise inevitable questions like : why
cannot we enjoy a piece of literature? Why must we spoil the fun by
criticizing? Such scholars are of the opinion that
the aesthetic tools hamper aesthetic experience because the reader is lost in a
mechanical enquiry. This objection, no doubt, has a logic for one who is not a
trained reader or who is not used to
applying such tools to a literary piece. But for a trained reader this objection has
no value because for him such an application to a piece of literature is not a
mechanical task but an assimilative act of reading and enjoying that piece of
literature.
Furthermore, to
answer the inevitable questions, raised above, Peter Berry says that the
enjoyment of literary art, no doubt, is
simple but the greatest enjoyment of
literary art is never simple. For the latter we need to have critical
tools. Perhaps T S Eliot had this notion
in his mind when he said “ that criticism is as inevitable as breathing”, and
we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we
read a book and feel an emotion about it. Nothing replaces the reader’s initial felt responses:
the sound of poetry on both the outer and inner ear; the visions of fiction in
the mind’s eye; the kinesthetic assault of “total theatre.” But human responses
seldom remain dead level: they reverberate through multiple planes of
sensibility, impelled towards articulation—in short towards criticism. It may
be subjective as well as objective
(critical). For the fullest appreciation
of literature, we need to have critical
tools. Their knowledge is not a
deterrent to the enjoyment of literature. On the contrary the application of
such tools can enhance the pleasure that the common reader can derive from a
piece of literature.
Let
us illustrate the argument with an analogy. Think of the premier shows in which
mostly the actors and the artists of
cinema are the audience. They are
thoroughly informed on the history of moviemaking; they know both
classic and contemporary films; they understand the technical operations of the
cinema and its myriad effects; they are familiar with acting styles, past and
present. While watching a movies,
they receive the same impressions on the
level of sense experience, as the other audience. But because of their
special knowledge, they comprehend what they witness. Their knowledge does not
dim their pleasure; it does not nullify any pre-critical or amateur response.
There is one more pause in relation to
the use of theory. The scholars hold that
a marked awareness of theory took place
during the
last quarter of the twentieth century when the writers,
critics, linguists, philosophers, and stylisticians all had become conscious of
the role of theory. The result came in the form of formalism, new criticism, stylistics,
structuralism, post structuralism, ,deconstruction, discourse analysis, semiotics
and dialogic criticism. In a word, according to them, it was the high-water mark of theories. To them now it is over with the titles like After Theory (Thomas Docherty, 1990),
‘Post Theory’ (Nicholas Tredell, in The
Critical Decade, 1993). They hold that that ‘the moment of theory’ is
over. And so there is no need of talking
about theory. But the present academic scenario both in the east and the west seem to unfold the fact. No doubt the
‘moment of theory’ is but the ‘hour of
theory’ has come as theory has become a
part of curriculum. Now it is not the business of minority rather it has become
the business of majority of people to learn and teach theory. So without any
pause the use of theory is relevant and
would be so in future as it has been in
the past.
Today there are number of names used
for this genre of literature. By the
students of literature, aesthetics is taken to be as literary
criticism poetics, literary theory,
critical approach etc.. Sometimes they,
due to ignorance, confuse the terms with one another and they tend to use these
terms interchangeably. In fact, aesthetics, poetics, literary criticism, literary theory, approach etc are not synonymous , though there is relationship among them. They can be
understood on the basis of their range.
Poetics is the legislative criticism or art of writing
poetry or the study of linguistic technique in poetry or literature. It is a
form of critical endeavour which lays down rules for the art of writing,
largely based on standard works of literature.
It is
related to the possibilities of the creative use of language at
different levels of a literary text.
Its range is restricted to a text or an
author. Elizabethan criticism, except Philip Sidney, and a large part of 18th
c criticism are of this order.
As far as literary theory is concerned,
it is aesthetical criticism or philosophy of literature which probes the nature of art in
general and literature in particular. It does many things
apart from helping the reader to reach at the meaning of a text. It is a set of
broad assumptions about literature and function of criticism. The range of literary theory is very wide which includes
many subtle questions such as how a work of art is produced, how it ought to be
read. What are the conditions in which the meaning is produced? How does a work
of art mean what it means? What effects does a work of art produce in the mind
of the reader? Does the subjectivity of the reader contribute to the meaning of
art? Is meaning an objective reality? Who is a poet? Who is a reader? Is there
any relationship of the poet belated with the precursor poet? Is there any relationship between the
writer and the reader? It
includes function of literature, poet’s
nature and experience of reader,
relationship between the reader and the poet. Its range is very wide which includes metaphysical,
psychological, epistemic, logical and critical points of view. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Coleridge, Walter
Pater, Oscar Wilde, I A Richards and others belong to this order.
Critical
approach is related to descriptive criticism which concerned with methodology
or with the varying ways in which art of literature or works of literature can
be profitably discussed. It is a study of individual writers and their works ,
their aims, methods and effects. Ben Jonson and Wordsworth belong to this
order. Much of English criticism is of this nature.
Aesthetics means science and philosophy
of fine arts. The problem of
aesthetics includes two aspects of fine arts-- the
technique of fine arts and the
theory or
philosophy or theory of fine arts. The technical point of view of the problem of
aestheticism
is related to the
possibilities of the creative use of language at different levels of a literary text. Its range is restricted to a text or an author. The
philosophy or theory of fine art,
involved in the function of literature,
in poet’s nature and in the experience of aesthetic pleasure of
reader/spectator, is the theoretical side of aesthetics. Its range is very wide which includes metaphysical,
psychological, epistemic, logical and critical points of view. In the West
the hedonistic, moralistic or pedagogic and philosophical theories represent the study of the problem from the
point of view of the end of art; the
theories of imitation, illusion, and
idealized representation represent a
study from the point of view of the artist; and
the theories of confused cognition, inference and mysticism represent a
study of the problem from the point of view of the reader/spectator/aesthete.
In Sanskrit, the most common name for poetics is alaṁkāra śāstra. Here the keyword is alaṁkāra which, with the first constituent alam, is to be understood on the authority of Agnipuraṇa as a synonym of the brahma.
When we say that a piece of fine art is alaṁkṛt, we mean that it is informed of
the (cognition potential of) the brahma. Three
have been attempts to displace the word alaṁkāra
from the seminality of poetics due to its limitations imposed on it by the word
decoration or poetic figure.
Another important name used of Indian
poetics is kāvyaśastra, which like mimaṁsā, (which is the science of the
Vedic sentence)is the science of the poetic or literary sentence (text). Here kāvya is poetic sentence or poetry or
literature and sāstra is science of
this sentence. It was Bhamaha who first used the word kāvya and accordingly the name kāvyaśāstra
for Indian poetics was used. Poetic sentence
is a flow whose source is the
writer and whose sink is the reader. In the benedictory of his Locana
on Ananadavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka ,
Abhinavagupta puts this in the following way:”The duo of the poet and the
receiver constitutes the unit of the itness of Saraswati.”
There is yet another popular name for Indian poetics used is saundaryasāstra. It has its interesting
journey. Vāmana was first to use saundarya
(beauty) for alaṁkāra in his Kāvyālaṁkārasūtra. Later Abhinavgupta
used the words sunder and sundarya in his descriptions of poetry
in his Locana on the Dhvanyāloka. Thereafter Kuntaka used the
word camatakara in the sense of beauty.
Then after a long gap the sūtra,
satyam (the truth), śivam (the
good) sundaram (the beautiful) was
used in the world of art and literature in 18th century. This was
the central sutra of English
Romanticism. The followers of Brahmo Samaj were influenced by English
Romantics. According to Kavi Gulab Rai
this sutra was first used by Raja
Rama Mohan Rai , the founder of Brahmo Samaj and later it was used by Devendranath Tagore.
Simultaneously in 18th Baumgarten
used the word aesthetics, borrowing from
Greek, in his doctorate thesis for the first time as the name of a special
science. From the Hegelian point of view it means “Philosophy of fine arts”
From popular use of the word it seems to mean a theory of beautiful in general,
whether in art or nature. Perhaps because of this development there was good chance for saundarya sāstra, which would correspond
to the western name aesthetics, for Sanskrit poetics.
Let me explain aesthetics in a layman’s
words. A particular language constitutes the bodily form of poetry, the I-ness
of poetry being free from this exterior just as the I-ness of life (ātmān) is free from this exterior
physicality of the bodily form (śarīra).
This I-ness of poetry is the sense of wonder, a special experience of pleasure.
This pleasure is called brahma in
Vedanta and by various other names in various other Indian systems of
philosophy. Here it is noteworthy that
this variformity of the naming process is not in contradiction to mutual
identity while being in oppositional compatibility. That is why in Indian
context the school of fine arts are known as : i)Rasa-Brahma-vāda (school dealing with
the experience of absolute in literature)ii). Nād-Brahma-vāda(school dealing with the experience of absolute in
music. iii) Vastu-Brahma-vāda(school
dealing with the experience of absolute in architecture). This
I-ness can further be understood as rasagatasaundarya (experience caused by aesthetic
sentiment) alaṁkāragatasaundarya (experience caused by figures), rītigatasaundarya (experience caused by
style), dhvanigatasaundarya
(experience caused by suggestion), vakroktigatasaundarya
(experience caused by oblique expression) and aucityagatasaundarya (experience caused by propriety). Accordingly
they are different theories, the theory of
rasa (aesthetic sentiment) the theory of alaṁkāra (figures), the theory of rīti (style), the theory of dhvani
(suggestion), the theory of vakrokti (oblique
expression) and the theory of aucitya
(propriety).
Keeping all this account in view we should use aesthetic
tools to
analyze and relish literature. The richness of great
literature merits correspondingly rich responses—responses that may be reasoned
as well as felt. Corollary to this
conviction is our belief that such responses come best when the reader
appreciates a great work at various levels of linguistic turns and from as many
perspective as it legitimately opens itself to. And it all requires aesthetic tools.
Here
is one precaution regarding the use
of critical tools. The critical tools
are not the final mapping to make an assessment of a piece of literature. They
are just reference points which we can modify, in which we can deletion and
addition in accordance with the form of the text. No doubt, we have theories to
make an assessment of a piece of literature written in any language. But we do
not have modern terminology. So for a successful application we have to be
little careful about the modern terminology.
applied Let me explain it in
other way. In
life there are always three models that operate in one way or the
other at varying intervals: the first is
the ideal model of things which tells how the things ought to be; the second is the existing model of
things which tells how the things are /were; and the third model is the functional model of things which tells how the things are said or thought to be. Now the question
is: Where do these models come from? The first model comes from our Shastras/Dharma
and this model works as a reference point. The second comes from our life in
action which is put to test of the ideal model and the third is a proposed
model to be used. Among these three models, the model given by the
Shastras/Dharma is very important
because it is a reference point. But it should be remembered that this ideal
model is not to be followed as such. It is just to facilitate us for modifying
our existing model of life. If the
modified/existing model does not work properly, it is not the fault of
the ideal model. The fault lies with those who fail to visualize the spirit of
the ideal model, who fail to visualize time, the circumstances in which the
modified model was to be used. What is needed is the recognition that its
interpretation is not to be done using a dictionary alone, we need to apply our
minds and try to understand what our aestheticians mean. The debate between the
scholars for and against the use of
theory will then be revealed to be
artificial and inconsequential.
