The corona pandemic and the resulting lockdowns have forced an unprecedented number of people to turn to the Internet and TV in their efforts to kill time.

From the isolation of their homes, hoards of bored people are using technological means to reach out to information, entertainment and one another. The sudden onset of the pandemic has pushed all of us into a reactive mode.

There is no time to think or hold back as we off-load ourselves of the fear of the pandemic and the imminence of mortality. The sword of death hangs over us as we seek diversions.

Every technological invention seemed to be a threat to the traditional forms of art. For many enthusiasts, the invention of the camera heralded the death of painting and the moving images, the death of theatre.

Yet, both survived the introduction of technology. The primary reason behind this was that the watertight distinction between what was possible through the new technology and what was seen to be primal human condition no longer remained sacred. The two ran into each other, thus creating another forum for the expression of the human existential dilemma.

The human beings have always been in a dilemma because the species does not really know why it is here and for what purpose. Therefore, on every passing day it has to invent a reason for its continued existence.

To the dismay of most, we have learnt that the real reason for being here is nothing more than our will to live.

All the talk about us not wanting to live is nullified by the great desire to live and live forever. A clean break like death is the nastiest jolt imaginable.

The film medium, whose advent had announced the death of theatre, soon found that it needed content to justify its existence.

In the beginning, it was helped by the popular fascination with technology that could capture and recreate the moving image. However, the novelty soon wore off and something else was expected of this new medium.

The stunts and acrobatics that provided amusement and wonderment, too, lost their fans over time.

The filmmakers then poached on drama, novels and short stories to create the new form called the feature film.

Over the decades, film has stayed so, and found itself to be the most enduring of the cinematic expressions.

Theatre too was hugely influenced by cinema. Techniques originating with the cinema started infiltrating the theatrical expression and the various styles of production that ensued from it.

It was followed by documentaries that focused on edited realism.

In photography, the stark realism repelled many. Thus, the purpose and forte of painting remained.

But at the same time, painting too changed considerably. It poached on the virtues, and possibly limitations, of photography.

The new forms influenced the more ancient forms of human expression, but eventually incorporated the same fundamental issues of human existence. The bad penny of unresolved human anguish keeps coming back.

Theatre, too, was hugely influenced by cinema. The techniques originating with cinema started infiltrating the theatrical expression and the various styles of production that ensued from it.

Gradually, as technology developed, the production changed correspondingly. At times, theatre was, and still is, accused of following the cinema too closely and of sacrificing its content to technological gimmickry.

Even in the recent past, theatre has undergone a great deal of change. There has been the emergence of what we call the immersive theatre – where the action on stage is augmented or translated into a virtual reality which decreases or attempts to eliminate the distance between the action on stage and the audiences viewing it. Then, there is a kind of theatre where people have some kinds of devices, such as mobile phones.

Instead of watching passively, those in the audience actively express their views and opinions and ask for action to take place in a way other than the plot.

In other words, the play is not written or produced beforehand, but is in a state of being formed with input from the audiences.

Now, this kind of interactive theatre, where the audience is part of the action, is different from the theatre where they participate only after the action has taken place. They are solicited into the action which is made or enacted again with their participation.

The author is not one, but many. The director, too, is at the audience’s bidding. This is a totally different concept from the author and director’s traditional role and contribution.

One wonders what the outcome of the performing arts will be once the isolation goes away. Being allowed to be part of a crowd or a gathering has always resulted in people sublimating themselves from being individuals to experience something collectively.

The individual, whether an artists, poet, dramatist or painter, draws on his or her experience and then waits for a response from the people .This two-way interaction has sanctified the traffic of art.

What will happen now? Will the response become secondary or will technology make it palpably as urgent as it is with a live performance?

When we look at our past, one thing becomes clear: the performing arts will survive the threat of corona thanks to the spirit of human ingenuity.