By Ari Ariyaratne –

(On the occasion of the launching of the fourth volume of the Kelani Sarasavi Kavi Saraniya).

The Kelaniye Api Sahruda Sansadaya (We, the Assembly of the Kelaniya University Connoisseurs)—a joint effort of the alumni of the University of Kelaniya—marks another milestone in its creative journey and will shortly present the fourth volume of the Sarasavi Kavi Saraniya to the reading community. I am an alumnus of the University of Kelaniya, a member of the Kelaniye Api Sahruda Sansadaya, and someone who had the opportunity to provide creative and appreciative contributions to the second (2024) and third (2025) volumes of the Sarasavi Kavi Saraniya. Nevertheless, as someone who is not an authoritative scholar or an expert in aesthetics and poetry appreciation, I am deeply delighted to have the opportunity to write about this grand occasion.

It goes without saying that the transformation of this friendly dialogue forum—which began in twenty twenty-one (2021) with the participation of only four individuals—into a productive and meaningful creative project with over two hundred (200) active members today is a factor that excellently demonstrates the strength as well as the potential of this collective.

Our Poetesses, Poets, and Their Creations

This volume consists of one hundred and fifty-five (155) poetry and song creations by poetesses and poets who have held or are currently holding high positions in various fields, including academic, professional, performing arts, communication, and business. Introduced as the poets who composed verses for the fourth volume of the Kelani Kavi Saraniya, they are (Venerable) Pallegama Hemaratana Thero, (Venerable) Dalupotha Upali Thero, Anura Manatunga, Ariyaratne Athugala, W. H. Upasena, Upul Ranjith Hewawidanagamage, Kulatilaka Kumarasinghe, Ramya Basnayake, Sunil Leelananda Perera, Ananda Weerakoon, Elsie Ranjani, Kumari Hitinayake, Kusum Malani Pathirana, Chandra Medagoda, Dhammika Karalliyadda, Dayananda Athuraliya, Niveditha Wijesundara, Rosie Kodikara, Wimala Prelis, Shirani Mangalika Wanasinghe, Sheela Indrani, Sunny Weralugolla, C. Ruwan Pathirana, Seetha Malani Waharaka, Sunanda Pallegama, Sunil Amunupura, Sumanasiri Weragama, Sena Liyanage, Somaratne Ridiyaphana, Y. M. Navaratne, Hareendranath Chandrasiri, and Ari Ariyaratne.

It is my feeling that the notable quantitative and qualitative growth of the Kelaniya University Connoisseurs Forum is a result of clearly understanding the role and nature of the Sahruda (the appreciative audience). Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative growth in submissions to the Kelani Sarasavi Kavi Saraniya—the forum’s annual poetry publication—reflects the direct and positive outcome of the aforementioned factor.

Volume four, page four of the Kelani Kavi Saraniya states: “We have firmly believed since the inception of this project that priority must be given to the qualitative excellence of a poetic creation. In doing so, we have heavily utilized the theories of great figures in Western aesthetics and poetic traditions, as well as Eastern—especially Indian—Rasa and Dhvani theorists.” It is my understanding that this decision has been immensely helpful in understanding the bond between the poet and the reader, as well as the nature of that interrelationship.

The Intimate Poet-Sahruda Bond and Indian Rasa-Dhvani Theory

Kavi-Sahruda is a term that gives meaning to the inseparable, creative bond existing between the poet and the appreciative reader (the sensitive audience). According to the analyses of classical Dhvani theorists like Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, a true poem is not complete simply because it has been written. It reaches completion—meaning the manifestation of Rasa (aesthetic flavor) occurs—only when the creative heart of the poet and the taste-filled heart of the reader meet. Although its author is anonymous, this shloka (poem), frequently cited in Sanskrit Subhashita literature, perfectly clarifies the aforementioned point:

“Kaviḥ karoti padyāni
Lālayatyuttamō janaḥ
Taruḥ prasūtē puṣpāṇi
Marudvahati saurabham”

(Just as the wind spreads the fragrance of the flowers blossomed by a tree, it is the Sahruda who enjoys the poems composed by the poet and spreads their value).

The “excellent person” (uttamō janaḥ) referred to here is the Sahruda (the connoisseur or the appreciative audience). By comparing the poet (kaviḥ) to a tree (taruḥ), both parties are depicted as natural creators. The role of the Sahruda is similar to the role of the wind. The tree produces flowers, but it lacks the power to spread its own fragrance. The wind is essential to carry that fragrance to the world. Similarly, even though the poet composes poetry, the poem truly comes alive, gains meaning, and spreads its expressive flavor (poetic aesthetic and meaning) through the enjoyment and appreciation of the Sahruda. This Sanskrit poem demonstrates that just as a flower’s fragrance is wasted without a gentle breeze, a poet’s creation also becomes futile if there is no Sahruda to realize the value of the poem.

The Poet, the Connoisseur, and Western Classical Aesthetics

According to classical Western aestheticists, a symbiotic partnership based on common universal rules of taste, logic, and nature exists between the poet (the creator) and the connoisseur (the critic or the sophisticated audience). According to the classical tradition, which originates from ancient roots like Aristotle and Horace and extends to Enlightenment Era thinkers of the eighteenth (18th) century such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant, the poet and the connoisseur are two sides of the same artistic coin: one possesses the genius necessary to create art, while the other possesses the refined faculty of judgment required to validate it.

Volume four, page five of the Kelani Kavi Saraniya also states: “We are highly sensitive to the wealth of knowledge built and currently being built, especially by contemporary Western critics, regarding the ideological and social resistance tendencies in poetry writing.” It is my understanding that this point has also been immensely helpful in clearly understanding the nature of the relationship between the poet and the connoisseur.

The Poet, the Connoisseur, and Social Power

Although classical philosophers argued that aesthetic appreciation is a matter of universal rationality, sociologists and anthropologists have pointed out that the concept of the connoisseur is deeply intertwined with social power, and that taste has always functioned as a tool to exclude and marginalize non-elite, underprivileged, and marginalized social groups. They note that connoisseurship operates as a gatekeeping mechanism. This allows the elite to transform their material wealth into cultural authority. This occurs equally in the eighteenth century as well as in the contemporary era.

The Eighteenth-Century Connoisseur: Aristocracy, Wealth, and Leisure

The eighteenth-century Rule of Taste was a tool used by the ruling elite to justify their political dominance. If someone possessed high taste, they were considered to have a refined soul and were therefore deemed fit to lead society.

To become a connoisseur, an individual had to possess a disinterested gaze completely free from any personal gain. That is, the luxurious freedom to look at an artwork solely for its aesthetics, apart from any practical use or livelihood necessity. As a direct result, the working class who spent their days doing manual labor was instantly excluded from this field. Only those with immense generational wealth could afford to spend on The Grand Tour travels, which was the highest symbol of connoisseurship in the eighteenth century. This tour, undertaken for years across Italy and France to view ancient artworks and antiquities, was completely out of reach for ordinary people.

The Connoisseur (Virtuoso) and the Nouveau Riche

Concurrently with the Industrial Revolution, a new commercial middle class emerged in Western Europe as well as in other parts of the world (colonies) under its economic and political grip. Although affluent with financial resources, these nouveau riche fellows lacked an aristocratic blood heritage. It is accurate to say that members of the nobility—who owned land but were gradually experiencing economic decline—used connoisseurship as a sophisticated tool to mock these newly rich merchants. The aristocracy, naturally accustomed to the discipline of taste from birth, intuitively appreciated high art as true connoisseurs; in contrast, they viewed the unrefined nouveau riche merely as conspicuous consumers who purchased art to display their wealth. I feel that the film Jalsaghar (The Music Room), directed by Bengali filmmaker Satyajit Ray in nineteen fifty-eight (1958), stands as the most excellent example from South Asian cinema to illustrate this point.

Gender Exclusion (Male/Female/Transgender)

Taste was heavily based on biological sex as well as social gender. Elite men established private clubs called Virtuoso for discussions on artworks and aesthetics. Women were constantly excluded from these spaces and were looked down upon not as judges of high art, but merely as fashion lovers.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s seminal work, Distinction (1979), emphasizes that the basic structure of taste still retains an elite character, proving that aesthetic appreciation is the product of an inherited class background. The book further suggests that while access to artworks has expanded today via the internet, the social structure of taste has only changed in its strategy.

Economic Barriers Hidden Behind an Intellectual Facade

Becoming a connoisseur today requires significant cultural capital. Cultural capital refers to social assets, such as education, style of speech, and vocabulary, that aid an individual’s social mobility. To become a connoisseur of contemporary fine arts—such as literature, music, theater, cinema, performing arts, painting, and sculpture—or avant-garde fashion, one must possess the ability to comprehend highly complex academic theories. Acquiring this specialized knowledge requires university degrees with exorbitant tuition fees. Alternatively, one must engage in low-income positions, such as the unpaid gallery internships prevalent in high-level urban art sectors, which remains an unfortunate social reality. Against this backdrop, only wealthy families have the financial capacity to bear the economic burden required to acquire these social assets.

Highbrow Cultural Taste and the Cultural Omnivore

As Pierre Bourdieu notes, in the past, elite connoisseurs were interested exclusively in classical opera, ballet, and similar high arts that were specifically sanctioned by high society. Today, however, elite status is marked by maintaining a “cultural omnivore” identity. To put it very briefly, modern elites maintain their dominance by appreciating everything, but they do so strictly on their own terms. This is what is identified as the cultural omnivore identity.

Transforming Popular Culture into an Intellectual Tool

Bourdieu’s argument is that by labeling elite taste as an inherent skill or talent belonging naturally to the elite, and working-class taste as inferior or vulgar, society subtly legitimizes class inequality. Within every sphere—including the school system, museums, art galleries, and the job market—it is the elite aesthetic framework, and nothing else, that is valued. Consequently, the way a person looks at a painting or enjoys a glass of wine automatically becomes a silent license—or a barrier—that determines their economic and social success.

Feminist and Subaltern Critique of Connoisseurship

As feminist and subaltern critics point out, traditional criteria of connoisseurship have always reproduced a patriarchal and Eurocentric dominance. In particular, Linda Nochlin, in her pioneering 1971 essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, demonstrates that institutional and social structures have systematically blocked women from receiving the training and recognition they deserve. Furthermore, Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parker, in their 1981 work Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, analyze how concepts like the language of connoisseurship and “genius” have been used to reinforce male-centric power. Their argument is that through this, art created by women was undervalued as mere crafts, while only the creations of male artists were celebrated as high art. Accordingly, they further note that connoisseurship has served as an ideological tool to erase women’s intellectual and artistic contributions from cultural history.

Post-colonial thinkers such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak can be seen expanding this argument further. For instance, as Spivak points out in her 1988 essay Can the Subaltern Speak?, the Western liberal model of aesthetic taste and the Orientalist approach highlighted by Edward Said (1978) have completely marginalized the cultural expressions of colonized societies. What the Western network of museums and art markets defined as “civilized appreciation” was, for the colonized, a cultural invasion that stripped them of their identity. In Spivak’s view, within such dominant structures, the subaltern is denied the space to appreciate art based on their own criteria. Therefore, aesthetic taste is not a mere aesthetic judgment, but a political barrier that reinforces Western imperialist and class power.

Appreciation and Tributes

It must be mentioned that Harindranath Chandrasiri has played—and continues to play—a pioneering role both in establishing the Kelaniya University Connoisseurs’ Association and in bringing all volumes of the University Poetry Anthology to the reading community. As a graduate in Business Administration from the University of Kelaniya, an award-winning artist, and a mass media expert, I am well aware that he took the lead in making this fourth volume a reality as well. I note with deep gratitude that Dr. Chandima Daskon rendered an invaluable service in designing the cover of this volume. On behalf of all its members, I would like to state that the Kelaniya University Connoisseurs’ Association highly appreciates the invaluable support extended by Mr. Prem Disanayake, the head of Surasa Publishers—headquartered in the capital of Sri Lanka—and his staff, during the publication of this fourth volume, just as they did for the previous three volumes of the Kelaniya University Poetry Anthology.

Looking Back at Myself / Self-Introspection

I feel it is appropriate to conclude this note with an introspective reflection. A frog-in-the-well mindset has never appealed to my mind. I have encountered, and at times associated with, experts from various fields across the world and individuals of vast erudition, both through literature and in real life. On every such occasion, I was made to feel how deeply limited my own knowledge is. Whenever I enjoy the world’s great poetic creations, I am constantly reminded of the poverty of my own aesthetic appreciation. The poetic talents of the poets and poetesses who have contributed to the Kelaniya University Poetry Anthology, as well as the broad aesthetic sensibilities of the enlightened community within the Kelaniya University Connoisseurs’ Association, firmly remind me once again of the narrow horizons and pettiness of my own creativity and appreciation.

I offer my warmest congratulations to all the poets and poetesses who contributed poems to the fourth volume of the Kelaniya University Poetry Anthology, as well as to everyone who supported this endeavor in various ways.