What is "shortcomings" in one's opinion may turn out to be "pinnacle of perfection" for others

Posted by Kamna (61.17.176.64) on January 15, 2006 at 11:49:06:

In Reply to: Medha posted by Shruti Jayaraman on January 14, 2006 at 14:40:18:

My comments on MH's "petty "erasable" errors" that may be no errors at all.

1. she is not aiming for a "cute and sweet" look: she is naturally cute and sweet, and because these are the things that most older dancers lack, hence the perception

2. "She somehow lets Sringara dominate her dance throughout" - and it is wonderful! How many other dancers can do that with such sincerity and depth? Well, I am sure Balasaraswati had been critisized by Rukmini Devi and everyone else who were unable to perform like Balasaraswati.

3. "if it is sticking to a "traditional" format even 80% of the time". For this, read the latest article here by A.Vasudevan.

4. "Her expressions flow smoothly and very realistically, but I sometimes feel they are irrelevant at places".

That's because your personal understanding of what is "relevant" and "irrelevant" is different from mine. I noticed that the dancers from outside India have vast differences on this subject.

What is "conveying the meaning of the Sahitya faithfully"? How she conveys this meaning is her personal style, if you like.

6. "her "Angasuddham" in Nritta is minimal"???? I beg to differ. Who are you comparing her with????

I think MH is unique precisely thanks to these wonderful "petty "erasable" errors". It is these "errors" that make masterpieces like Mona Lisa unique.