This article explores different artistic interpretations of Mohiniyattam by revivalist dancers, suggesting diverse engagements with tradition.
The dance of Mohiniyattam, revived as one of the classical Indian dances, had a meagre repertoire of which much was abandoned on the grounds of inappropriateness to the new, educated, middle-class female practitioners. Given this void, what logic was used by the first generation of revivalists to give the fullness of a traditional practice to the rudiments that were culled out from erstwhile practitioners? This article approaches the work of eminent practitioners who recreated the classical form of Mohiniyattam as interpretive projects, which were grounded in their distinct claims to authority/authenticity as arbiters of tradition. The artists Bharathi Shivaji, Kanak Rele and Kalamandalam Kshemavathy were among the first generation of exponents who gave wide currency to the form and created a legacy. Nevertheless, the locus of each performer’s anchoring in ‘tradition’ is different and is reflected in the different embodied aesthetics of the styles carved by the exponents based on their engagement with dance and Keralite culture. Their artistic imaginaries took different trajectories while also converging largely on points of musical accompaniment, costuming and the felt need for expansion tainted in varying degrees by a nostalgic invocation of the past and the reflection of a liberated modernity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mythili Maratt Anoop (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: