Abstract

Mirrored walls are common feature in the dance studios at sports centres, theatres or within a university setting and the dancers dance in front of mirrors quite regularly. They look at the mirror and constantly correct their physical postures. In every sense, mirror is now an important pedagogical tool in the Western dance training. Such level of dependency on mirror and its impact on the stage performance of dancers has been studied by several practitioners and they agree that the dependency on mirror during the training stages adversely affect the dancer’s quality of performance. From a teaching perspective, I find it hard to teach students who are over reliant on constantly reflecting upon their reflections (Ehrenberg, 2010, p.172). Why is it so?

I had been a student of various Indian dance forms for the last 30 years. Mirror had never been a pedagogical tool in any of the Indian performance training sessions until today. A student’s learning is entirely dependent on the instructions, suggestions, and corrections provided by the Guru. Stories and fables about the relationship between Guru and disciple (shishya) are readily available within the culture, right from Upanishads to the actor-training practices. From a performance perspective, Bharata’s Natyasastra prescribes various qualities for a Guru. What this paper attempts to undertake is an analysis of the pedagogical practice of traditional performance training from the Indian context, to reassess the place of Guru, by reflecting upon my own training as well as by drawing upon the teaching and learning practice found in Upanishads and Natyasastra.