Her movement commands attention through precision, not spectacle. This acclaimed artist rebuilt Indian dance from its foundations. She refuses to smile through the pretense.
Her trajectory is distinct. It cuts across classical training, a decade with an iconoclast, and two decades of her own uncompromising contemporary practice. Her work challenges traditional conventions.
She trained as a child in Bharatanatyam. After a break for science, dance pulled her back. Her body of work now interrogates what it means to move honestly.
She strips away decorative layers piled onto female bodies for centuries. Her vocabulary respects tradition while dismantling its oppressive aesthetics. This creates performances that challenge audiences everywhere.
Early Life and Bharatanatyam Beginnings
A child’s body learned to move through a master’s voice and the sharp beat of a stick. This was the heart of her early training.
Childhood Training and Early Influences
She started her journey as a Bharatanatyam dancer at eight years old. Her practice was strict. The form demanded perfect repetition of steps called adavus.
Her years of training followed a traditional way. There were no lessons on anatomy or muscle use. The goal was for the body to comply through sheer repetition.
This created a deep physical knowledge. But it also left a young dancer disconnected from the stories she was told to tell.
The Role of Pandanallur Subbaraiya Pillai
Her guru, Pandanallur Subbaraiya Pillai, was a respected nattuvanar. He taught by sitting on the floor. He gave commands and kept rhythm without ever demonstrating a step himself.
She performed her debut, the arangetram, at age twelve. The piece was the Mohamana varnam, full of romantic longing. It felt like a script for a child to perform, not believe.
She loved the geometric precision of pure dance. The expressive, smiling storytelling, however, felt like a limitation. It was a pretense that would shape her future path.
The Transformative Journey with Chandralekha
The year was 1990, and a four-year break from dance ended the moment she stepped into Chandralekha’s studio. This encounter ignited a new sense of purpose for her creative work.
Chandralekha offered a new way to understand history. It was not through books but through the physical body itself. This was a new kind of education.
Encountering a New Dance Philosophy
Chandra’s critiques were direct. She challenged the aesthetic conditioning of “English-educated” artists. Her goal was to decolonize movement.
Their ten years together were intense. The relationship was built on fierce arguments and deep respect. Chettur was thrown out of the company and invited back multiple times.
This volatile mentorship shaped her entire body of work. It taught her to question everything.
Embracing a Broader Aesthetic Vision
Chandra’s famous directive was to “be ancient as quickly as you can.” This rejected the pressure on young female dancers to be pretty.
Performing in works like “Prana” was a revelation. Chettur could use Bharatanatyam’s geometric vocabulary without the mandatory smile. It was a relief to let go of pretense.
| Aspect | Traditional Training | Chandralekha’s Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Technical precision and storytelling | Political and historical context of movement |
| Teacher-Student Dynamic | Guru-disciplined follower | Volatile, conversational partnership |
| Body’s Purpose | Execute form and convey emotion | Interrogate form and challenge aesthetics |
| Performance Goal | Audience pleasure and tradition | Audience reflection and disruption |
The Honest Body: Redefining Movement
What does it mean for a dancer’s body to tell the truth? This question became central to her artistic philosophy.
Concepts of Authenticity in Dance
Chandralekha used harsh terms like “cheating” for dancers who pretended. She demanded brutal honesty about physical limitations.
The honest body refuses false smiles and performed seduction. It represents a different kind of performance ethics.
This concept connects movement to lived experience. The body cannot lie about who you really are.
Letting Go of Pretense in Performance
Bharatanatyam dancers carry deep layers of stylization. This makes the path to honesty longer and more painful.
The performer learns to simply be on stage rather than act. They strip away affectation to reveal real presence.
Audiences can always sense the difference. They know who is truly present in the movement.
Over time, this demanding philosophy has adapted. Younger dancers engage with the discourse in a different way.
Padmini Chettur’s Unique Voice in Contemporary Dance
Between ages 23 and 30, while still performing in Chandra’s company, she began questioning the very foundation of her movement. This period marked a critical turning point in her artistic development.
Breaking Away from Tradition
Chettur agreed with Chandra’s rejection of sentimentality but sought space for vulnerability. She wanted to explore movement ideas beyond geometric precision.
A troubling distance grew between her inner life and the iconographic images demanded by Chandra’s choreography. She felt like a body delivering an image rather than a thinking artist.
For seven years, she created small study pieces with colleagues. This work aimed to dismantle layers of stylization from years of classical training.
Integrating Scientific Insight with Art
With Krishna Devanandan, she began private anatomical research. They studied which muscles support specific actions—knowledge absent from traditional dance training.
Her chemistry background gave her a systematic way to understand the body. This approach transformed inherited form into conscious choice.
This research period led toward creating new pedagogy for classically trained dancers. It built a bridge between tradition and contemporary practice without abandoning technique.
Bridging Classical Bharatanatyam with Contemporary Expression
Bharatanatyam dancers often perform with technical precision but little knowledge of their own physical mechanics. This gap between classical training and contemporary understanding reveals itself in injured bodies and unthinking movement.
Deconstructing Established Movement Vocabulary
Chettur developed a new movement vocabulary rooted in anatomical inquiry rather than rote repetition. Her approach respects the traditional form while asking fundamental questions about how the body works.
Many dancers graduate from institutions like Kalakshetra without understanding basic anatomy. They don’t know where their spine begins and ends or which muscles support specific movements.
| Aspect | Traditional Training | Anatomical Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | Rote repetition of steps | Scientific understanding of body mechanics |
| Injury Prevention | Often overlooked | Central to practice methodology |
| Dancer Awareness | Technical execution focus | Body consciousness and efficiency |
| Long-term Sustainability | High injury rates among young dancers | Extended career longevity through proper form |
Embracing Innovation and Experimentation
This ignorance leads to dancers damaged too young by a practice that could be rigorous without being destructive. Chettur advocates injecting scientific knowledge into the form’s pedagogy.
The goal isn’t to change what the form is, but to allow dancers to work efficiently. They should sit in araimandi for two hours without damaging their knees.
Some practitioners like Navtej Singh Johar have attempted similar reforms. However, mainstream practice remains largely stagnant despite these isolated experiments.
Chettur believes dancers could bridge classical and contemporary practice with deeper physical awareness. This turns inherited form into conscious choice rather than unexamined habit.
Reinterpreting Mohamana: A Bold Feminist Experiment
The Mohamana varnam, learned at age seven, became the site of a mature feminist excavation decades later. An IFA grant in 2016 allowed Padmini Chettur to critically reinterpret this central piece of Bharatanatyam. Her goal was to challenge the narrative imposed on female bodies.
Challenging Objectification in Traditional Dance
Traditionally, the piece voices a woman pining for an absent lover. Chettur saw this as a story crafted through the male gaze. Her new work aimed for de-objectification.
She assembled a unique group of five dancers for this process. Their backgrounds were deliberately mixed:
- Two from Bharatanatyam
- One from Kathak
- Two with no Indian classical training
This collective interrogated what the inherited narrative means to contemporary women. The process stripped away layers of sanskritisation.
Reclaiming the Narrative of Female Expression
Chettur collaborated with singer Brinda Manickavasagam, who was not a dance accompanist. This choice brought a fresh perspective to the traditional music. It prevented automatic service to choreographic convention.
Instead of a unified story, the piece built dissonance and parallel voices. Dancers and music argued with the text, refusing a singular interpretation.
The work premiered at the Kochi Biennale in December 2016. It was structured as a sustained inquiry—six 30-minute cycles performed daily over months. This project let personal history and collective experience reshape traditional form.
Collaborative Creativity in Music and Lighting
The soundscape emerges not as background music but as a parallel language to the moving body. This approach transforms the performance space into a collaborative environment.
The Synergy with Maarten Visser
Maarten Visser has composed for every work since “Fragility” in 2001. Their twenty-year partnership functions as translation of the body’s unspoken language.
The “Pushed” commission revealed their unique process. The Seoul festival wanted Visser to work with traditional Korean musicians. This created a musical exploration with dance attached.
Their collaboration allows for creative risks and experimentation. Trust built over decades enables this deep synergy.
Role of Lighting Designers in Shaping Performance
Lighting design carries equal weight in Chettur’s work. Zuleikha Allana brought uncompromising precision to “Pushed.” Her light became an active element rather than mere illumination.
Later, Jan Maertens joined for the “Beautiful Thing” series. These works explored bodies in space and rhythm structures. The lighting design centralized the body as the primary research tool.
These collaborations demonstrate that contemporary dance is fundamentally collaborative. Music and light serve as co-creators of the performance architecture.
Evolving Choreographic Vocabulary: From Fragility to Pushed
Four bodies moved through space, allowing vulnerability to guide their form rather than technical perfection. This marked the starting point of a new choreographic era.
The artist’s work evolved through three significant pieces that redefined contemporary Indian dance. Each piece explored different relationships between movement, space, and time.
Exploring Movement, Space, and Form
“Fragility” (2001) featured four women dancers embracing uncertainty. The piece challenged the geometric certainty of classical training.
German choreographer Sasha Waltz discovered this work in India. She helped introduce it to European audiences.
“Paperdoll” (2005) took three years to develop. Five dancers remained on stage throughout the entire performance.
They presented movement vocabulary before the main piece began. This framing helped audiences understand unfamiliar forms.
Navigating the Tension Between Structure and Spontaneity
“Pushed” (2006) represented a major shift in approach. Dancers entered and exited rather than staying visible.
The work explored how bodies hold time and space. It used bodily images to convey emotional concepts.
European audiences found the piece too abstract. Indian audiences responded strongly to the same work.
This reception difference revealed how cultural context shapes dance interpretation. The artist reached a turning point in her career philosophy.
Philosophical Underpinnings and the Decolonization of Dance
International touring forced a confrontation with labels and expectations. This period raised fundamental questions about how to present her work abroad.
Engaging with Aesthetics and Historical Context
Meeting Chandralekha marked a turning point. The older artist diagnosed colonial education in physical terms, claiming even the shape of an English-educated mouth was wrong.
This was not metaphor but a direct challenge. Chettur began to understand history in a new way—as something lived in the body’s posture and gesture.
She learned to read aesthetics as inherited conditioning. The process of decolonizing dance became a years-long unlearning.
Dialogue Between Traditional and Contemporary Ideologies
European curators engaged in serious dialogue about terminology. They questioned whether to present the work as “Contemporary Indian dance” or simply “contemporary dance from India.”
Chettur initially believed her generation could break from orientalist lenses. She hoped for a new kind of reception.
After “Pushed,” this idealism faded. She grew tired of being a poster girl for an entire nation’s contemporary dance scene.
She reached a philosophical shift. Dance, she decided, could not solve political problems. This realization freed her to create beautiful things without the burden of meaning.
Pedagogical Shifts and New Narratives in Dance Training
Seven years of anatomical research with Krishna Devanandan laid the foundation for a radical new approach to dance pedagogy. Chettur aimed to create a bridge for classically trained dancers wanting different work.
Innovative Approaches Beyond Conventional Methods
The training process was intensive. “Paperdoll” took three years partly because of this focus. She rebuilt understanding from anatomical foundations up.
Chennai’s Bharatanatyam dancers showed little interest in her proposition. The ecosystem shifted. Dancers came either untrained or with athletics or ballet backgrounds.
This revealed classical training’s limitations. Dancers conditioned by one vocabulary often couldn’t undertake the difficult work of dismantling it.
Professional performance demands what she calls demechanizing the known. Performers must repeat work dozens of times without mechanical reproduction. The body needs to understand its spine and joints deeply.
Choreography requires precision in time and space. But within that structure, performers find genuine presence each time. When Padmini performed “Sharira,” it ranged from 48 to 50 minutes depending on her daily rhythm.
Her pedagogy asks dancers to make informed choices about technique. They learn to protect their bodies while working rigorously. This way of practice honors both structure and the living body.
Audience Engagement and Challenging Expectations
Between 2000 and 2005, theater spaces witnessed a quiet rebellion against entertainment expectations. The artist’s work demanded a different kind of attention from audiences accustomed to more familiar forms.
Transforming the Stage Experience
Performances challenged through uncompromising temporality. Movements stretched beyond comfort, silence replaced expected sound. Dancers refused to seduce or charm their viewers.
European audiences particularly struggled with this vocabulary. The work carried obvious precision yet disconnected from popular contemporary dance language. This created confusion about whether they were watching traditional or contemporary pieces.
For Paperdoll’s Paris opening, a deliberate strategy unfolded. Dancers stood on stage as the audience entered. The hope was that their presence would quiet social chatter and focus attention.
The strategy failed. People kept talking regardless of the silent figures before them. This revealed how little authority unfamiliar brown bodies commanded in European spaces.
This framing experiment explored whether audiences could engage with unfamiliar work intellectually. The artist questioned if she could challenge dismissive exoticization through deliberate staging.
Work not served easily often gets dismissed, especially from the global South. This performance refused both tradition and Western conventions equally.
Audiences read movement through different lenses. Some bring deep knowledge while others respond instinctively. Many search dancers’ faces for emotional cues to guide their reaction.
This variability meant the work succeeded differently across contexts. What India read as emotionally rich, Europe often dismissed as too abstract. The reception said more about viewers than the choreography itself.
A Reflective Journey Through Dance and Life
After two decades of work, a shift occurred. The premiere of “Pushed” in 2006 marked the end of an era. It was the starting point for seeing dance as pure image.
This change freed her from the burden of meaning. She no longer believed dance could solve political problems. Her new goal was simpler: to make a beautiful thing.
The “Beautiful Thing” series became a self-indulgent exploration. It focused on bodies in space, time, and rhythm. The body itself was the main research tool.
Her creative process transformed. Before, it took one or two years to link form to a specific idea. After 2006, she worked faster, allowing movement to generate its own logic.
Looking back across many years, her journey is clear. It moves from geometric iconography to narrative, then to abstraction. This path reflects a mature artist embracing beauty without demanding answers.
She acknowledges the vital, often unseen collaboration with composer Maarten Visser. Their twenty-year partnership provided a foundation for this entire body of work. It allowed the dance to speak in its own time.
