But is yoga an art?
If yoga is an art, then it should meet certain criteria, which might qualify it to be called an art.
AskOxford.com gives these definitions under art:
1 : the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture.
2 : the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively.
3 : (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama.
4 : (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
5 : a skill: the art of conversation.
Definition #5, here, is much too broad, and not really what I’m trying to get at. Defs 1, 2, and 4 are out, too, for obvious reasons.
I think definition #3 comes closest to defining art the way that I mean it. I want to know if yoga fits in among activities like painting, music, and drama. Is it an art, or is it something else — in some other category closer to brushing your teeth, or clearing brush.
In his book The Art Instinct, Dennis Dutton asserts that art has seven universal signatures. According to him, virtually every art shares these seven signatures.
Dennis Dutton’s 7 Universal Signatures of Art:
Expertise or virtuosity, non-utilitarian pleasure, style, criticism, imitation, special focus, and imagination.
Painting, drawing, sculpture, drama, and the likes all share these signatures. So how does yoga measure up?
Expertise or virtuosity: Yoga easily qualifies on the expertise requirement. The practice develops the whole body, making it stronger and more supple, while increasing concentration and patience in the mind. The results are clearly manifested in any yogi’s practice.
Non-utilitarian pleasure: I certainly take plenty of pleasure from my yoga practice, the effects on my mind and body both during and after I practice. But the question of utility is an interesting one, because I do sort of expect to derive tangible benefits, and not just an abstract pleasure.
The gut-level sense of awe and beauty that I feel when I look at a great painting, or a listen to Mozart (or Jimi Hendrix, for that matter) isn’t really a part of my practice. I’ve watched people demonstrate yoga poses, and derived a similar reaction that might constitute N-UP, but I hesitate to really call that yoga.
If, though — as I’m not ready to say that it is —presentation, for others to admire and enjoy, is an important and integral part of yoga, then it might share the quality of non-utilitarian pleasure.
Style: Definitely. Yoga has scores of styles, passed on from teachers to pupils, over hundreds of years, along with the accrued knowledge of yoga theory and praxis that have condensed within each style’s lineages.
Criticism: You can certainly say something like, “That person’s triangle pose is sound, and that one needs work,” or, “That person is breathing calmly, while that one is breathing fast and choppilly.” Those would be legitimate avenues of criticism. However, it might be a little bit harder to say, “That person is mentally active and focused, while the other is daydreaming,” without actually getting inside the yogi’s own head.
That being said, the mind/body partition isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. As B.K.S. Iyengar says: “The mind functions through the nervous system.” (Light on Yoga)
It’s not too difficult to spot the outward manifestations of a scattered mind. These inlude an inability to take or retain instruction, sloppy form, and wandering eyes. And as a result, I say the critique of an inconstant mind can certainly be applied and put to use. In my opinion, a place for discernment and criticism, even in the more internalized areas of the practice, is important to yoga.
Imitation: The yoga tradition uses and has used imitation to pass on the postures since antiquity. Even though they might exist on paper, either written down or drawn, the real place where the poses exist is in the practices of yogis themselves.
The process of imitation is dynamic, and the poses warp and change to fit each person. But the techniques and natural human lines of energy maintain a constancy and a texture that lend themselves to ready observation and attempts at direct imitation. In fact, the act of imitation is crucial before an individual practice can take root and develop.
Special Focus: The wellness of the body; the integration of the mind and body; the cultivation of mental stillness and fortitude. (Among others.) These, in my mind, are the special focus of yoga.
Imagination: I am unable, as I see things, to endorse yoga’s imaginative element. Imagination implies an element of the unreal, of the abstract and fantastical. As Dutton wrote, “Art's world of imagination and make-believe is one where analysis and criticism spoil none of the fun.” I don’t believe the realm of imagination is the same realm that yoga occupies.
In fact, I’d argue that yoga occupies a realm almost antipodal to that of the imagination, in which the experience is manifest not by exploring the imagined but the irrefutably real and tangible. Yoga imports that reality into the structure and function of the mind.
This gets back to the question of utility, in a way. There are very real and intended benefits from yoga, and these derive from refusing to let the imagination fill in the gaps, and instead actually pushing the body to push the limits of physical ability.
Conclusion:
Yoga is not an art. It is a practice of skill, with style and tradition that are passed on and developed through instruction and criticism. However, its goals are tangible and useful — they are meant to enhance the life (i.e. health, strength, and stamina) of the practitioner. And as such, the imaginative element is woefully lacking, if not actively avoided.
I must say, this is sort of disappointing, because I do like to think of myself as of the at least marginally artistic kind. But I think the conclusion is sound: yoga is about real world knowledge, and not the abstract and elusive energies of the artistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment