Expanding on the Cinema of Prayōga as an Embodied Approach to Experimental Film

Abstract

This paper revisits the concept of Cinema of Prayōga, a theoretical framework for the study of experimental film and video proposed by Indian film critic Amrit Gangar in 2005. It re-evaluates the potential and scope of this framework as an alternative approach to notions of avant-garde cinema. Prayōga means practice or experiment in Sanskrit. This paper argues that a deeper focus on the roots of the term in yoga philosophy and praxis, can further expand the potential of Cinema of Prayōga as an embodied approach to experimental film. Further, it illustrates how this framework can support comparative research on experimental cinema, through a re-reading of American avant-garde film aesthetics of light illustrated by the work of Stan Brakhage and Marie Menken. The paper concludes with highlighting how Cinema of Prayōga offers an embodied and alternative epistemological approach to the study of experimental film.

Full text

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
471
Resumen
Este artículo revisita el concepto de Cine de
Prayōga, un marco teórico para el estudio de
cine y video experimental propuesto por el
crítico de cine indio Amrit Gangar en 2005.
El artículo reevalúa el potencial y el alcance
de este marco como un enfoque alternativo
al cine experimental. Prayōga signica prác-
tica o experimento en sánscrito. Este artículo
argumenta que un enfoque más profundo
en las raíces del término en la losofía y la
praxis del Yoga puede expandir aún más el
potencial de Cine de Prayōga como un enfoque encarnado para el cine experimental. Ade-
más, ilustra cómo este marco puede sostener la investigación comparativa sobre el cine
experimental, a través de una relectura de la estética cinematográca de la luz en la van-
guardia estadounidense y el trabajo de Stan Brakhage y Marie Menken, a través de la lente
del Prayōga. El artículo concluye destacando la importancia del Cine de Prayōga como un
enfoque encarnado y decolonial para el estudio del cine experimental.
Palabras clave
“Cine”; “Estética”; “Filosofía cultural”; “Arte de
vanguardia”; “Encarnación”; “Cine de Prayōga”
Sumario
1. Introducción. 2. Metodología. 3. Hacia una
vanguardia transcultural. 4. Policentrismo
y pluriversalidad. 5. Expansión de Prayōga
como praxis encarnada. 5.1 El yōga en
Prayōga. 6. Un enfoque Prayōgico de la
estética cinematográca experimental. 7.
Conclusiones. 8. Bibliografía.
Ampliando el Cine de Prayōga como un enfoque
encarnado del cine experimental
Kalpana Subramanian | kalpanas@buffalo.edu
University at Buffalo (The State University of New York)
Cómo citar este texto:
Kalpana Subramanian (2022): Expanding on the Cinema of Prayōga as an Embodied
Approach to Experimental Film, en Miguel Hernández Communication Journal, Vol. 13 (2),
pp. 471 a 490. Universidad Miguel Hernández, UMH (Elche-Alicante). DOI: 10.21134/
mhjournal.v13i.1451

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
472
Abstract
This paper revisits the concept of Cinema
of Prayōga, a theoretical framework for
the study of experimental lm and video
proposed by Indian lm critic Amrit Gan-
gar in 2005. It re-evaluates the potential
and scope of this framework as an alter-
native approach to notions of avant-garde
cinema. Prayōga means practice or experi-
ment in Sanskrit. This paper argues that
a deeper focus on the roots of the term
in yoga philosophy and praxis, can further
expand the potential of Cinema of Prayōga as an embodied approach to experimental lm.
Further, it illustrates how this framework can support comparative research on experimen-
tal cinema, through a re-reading of American avant-garde lm aesthetics of light illustrated
by the work of Stan Brakhage and Marie Menken. The paper concludes with highlighting
how Cinema of Prayōga offers an embodied and alternative epistemological approach to
the study of experimental lm.
Keywords
“Cinema”; “Aesthetics”; “Cultural philosophy”;
“Avant-garde art”; “Embodiment”; “Cinema of
Prayōga”
Summary
1. Introduction. 2. Methodology. 3. Towards a
Transcultural Avant-garde. 4. Polycentrism and
Pluriversality. 5. Expanding on Prayōga as Embo-
died Praxis. 5.1 e Yōga in Prayōga. 6. A Prayōgic
Approach to American Avant-garde Film Aesthe-
tics. 7. Conclusions. 8. Bibliography.
Expanding on the Cinema of Prayōga as an Embo-
died Approach to Experimental Film
Kalpana Subramanian | kalpanas@buffalo.edu
University at Buffalo (The State University of New York)
How to cite this text:
Kalpana Subramanian (2022): Expanding on the Cinema of Prayōga as an Embodied
Approach to Experimental Film, en Miguel Hernández Communication Journal, Vol. 13 (2),
pp. 471 a 490. Universidad Miguel Hernández, UMH (Elche-Alicante). DOI: 10.21134/
mhjournal.v13i.1451

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
473
1. Introduction
The dominant history of experimental cinema has primarily been constructed through a
Euro-American centric lens. In a move to challenge this epistemological imbalance, Indian
lm scholar and critic Amrit Gangar presents an alternative framework called Cinema of
Prayōga. Gangar builds his framework around the notion of prayōga, a Sanskrit term which
he proposes in lieu of “Experimental Film and its synonyms” (2006: 10). In his words:
Cinema of Prayōga celebrates a cinematographic idiom that is deeply located in the
polyphony of Indian philosophy and cultural imagination. It attempts to recongu-
re the generally accepted notion of the experimental and the avant-garde in Indian
cinema by conjuring the term ‘Prayōga’ from Indian philosophical thought. Etymo-
logically, the term prayōga in Sanskrit refers to a theory of practice that emphasizes
the potential of any form of contemplation – ritualistic, poetic, mystic, aesthetic,
magical, mythical, physical or alchemical. In cinema, it is a practice of lmic interro-
gation that is devised as a quest toward a continuing process in time and space. This
is a cinema that in contrast to mainstream formulations anywhere else in the world,
employs Indian music, poetry, mythology and performance to examine the relations-
hip between their status as lmic texts and the ‘ctions-in-progress’ of their subjects.
(Gangar, A. 2012: 189)
As seen in Gangar’s description, term prayōga ( in Sanskrit) captures a culturally
unique non-Western ethos of practice and experimentation. It represents for Gangar, an
“ancient pre-modern tradition of innovation,” that offers a rich cultural and aesthetic basis
for the study of cinematic arts (2012: 189). The term is found extensively in liturgical and
philosophical texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism and is still used today in Hindi,
Malayalam, Marathi, and Assamese and other major Indian languages. A rendering of prayō-
ga in Chinese is jia-xing or “加行,” which alludes to “the active practice or cultivation of the
Buddha Way” (King, S. 1991: 41).
The essence of prayōga lies in contemplative modes of practice (Gangar, 2006: 24; 2012:
189). According to Gangar, the prex “pra,” works like an “engine” that propels the word
forward, carrying in its momentum, “the sense of vanguard” (2006: 24). Its root in Sanskrit
is “yōg,” which in turn comes from “yuj,” meaning to yoke, combine or integrate. Thus, in
his view prayōga thus serves as a potent, artistic, expansive, and unifying word that allows for
a rich conceptualization of radical experimentation in cinema (Gangar, 2006: 9-10).
The term Cinema of Prayōga, was coined by Gangar in 2005 and presented in Mumbai as
part of Experimenta, a lm festival founded and directed by curator Shai Heredia.1 The
1 Butler and Mirza acknowledge Heredia as “an international voice for Indian lm and video”
without whose contributions and the work being done through the Experimenta festival,
the Cinema of Prayoga tour and publication would not have have been possible (2006: 4, 6).

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
474
following year it was brought to UK by Experimenta and the artist run lab no.w.here in the
form of a touring exhibit presented at Tate Modern (London) among other venues. This
program included historical lms such as Dhundiraj Govind Phalke’s Raja Harishchandra
(1913) as well as eclectic works produced in the 1960s under the Indian government’s Films
Division such as Trip (1970) by Pramod Pati (Experimenta India, n.d.-a). Moving image
works by contemporary artists such as Nalini Malani and Tejal Shah also featured in the
program. Several lms showcased in the program had originally been excavated from archi-
ves by Heredia and had been featured at Experimenta (Experimenta India, n.d.-a; Butler,
B. & Mirza, K. 2006: 4-5).
This tour was accompanied by the publication of the edited volume Cinema of Prayoga: In-
dian Experimental Film and Video 1913-2006 which presented critical voices of scholars and
practioners in the eld including Gangar, Heredia, Navjot Altaf, Ashish Avikunthak, Raqs
Media Collective and others (Butler, B. & Mirza, K. eds. 2006). The concept of Cinema of
Prayōga continued to articulate itself further and be developed and disseminated in this
manner, through publications, lectures, and curated lm programs.2 While the relevance
of the Cinema of Prayōga as a theoretical framework has been acknowledged by scho-
lars internationally, there is room for greater exploration of the subject. Gangar himself
denes it as “a theory under construction” which is in a continuously unfolding “process
of becoming – evoking a temporality akin to cinematography” (2012: 189-190, 200). It
continues to invite aesthetic intercultural dialogue and critical reection on the notion of
experimentation itself.
As an artist, scholar and practioner of experimental lm and media from India, I was drawn
to this framework for its ability to expand notions of experimentation in cinema beyond
the Euro-American canon. It is an important cross-cultural intervention in studies of media
and offers a South Asian perspective. This paper revisits Cinema of Prayōga to re-evalua-
te its signicance and potential for the study of experimental lm today. It explores the
ontology of yoga in prayōga to further articulate how the framework could be developed
in relation to contemporary critical concerns in the eld. It builds on Gangar’s notions of
prayōga as praxis to further articulate modes of embodiment in experimental cinema within
the larger context of decolonizing media studies.
2. Methodology
This paper explores the concept of Cinema of Prayōga as a new approach to the avant-gar-
de, drawing from writings by Geeta Kapur, Saloni Mathur, Micheal O’pray, and Gangar
himself. It examines his concept in relation to “polycentric aesthetics” as dened by Ella
Shohat and Robert Stam (1998), exploring its value as a decolonial methodology for cinema
2 Venues where Cinema of Prayoga was showcased include the University of the Arts
(London), Pompidou Centre (Paris), and the Lodz Film School (Poland) among others.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
475
and media studies. A deeper etymological examination of the term prayōga, with a focus
on yōga philosophy and practice builds on the embodied potential of the framework. This
aspect is explicated through a comparison between the role of light in North American
Avant-garde cinema as dened by William C. Wees (1996) and the role of breath in yoga
practice to illustrate a possible application of a prayōgic approach in a comparative study.
Drawing from the author’s own practice of experimental lm, this paper further articulates
how the Cinema of Prayōga framework could serve as a pedagogical platform for arts-ba-
sed research. In conclusion this study articulates its potential as an embodied and practi-
ce-based approach to experimental lm, summarizing directions for its future expansion.
3. Towards a Transcultural Avant-garde
The proposition of Cinema of Prayōga surfaced at a time when a growing interest in the
excavation, re-framing, and celebration of experimental moving image practices in India
was beginning to gain new momentum (Experimenta India, n.d.-b). Increasing collabora-
tions between art practitioners, scholars, and curators from India and abroad accelerated
the need for a new vocabulary that could encapsulate the diversity of artistic practices be-
yond the categories and concerns of the so-called West. In his seminal text on Cinema of
Prayōga, Gangar challenges the relevance of labels such as “experimental” and “avant-gar-
de” cinema:
Since the rst explorations into the so-called experimental/avant-garde/underground
lms started in Western Europe and North America, naturally the relevant theories
also emerged from there. Why so? Isn’t experimentation intrinsically universal – in
one form or another? In the times when, the Euro-American establishment can only
assimilate non-western art on manifestly ethnographic terms while keeping the op-
tion open, to reject it precisely on those terms, how do we recognize the avant-garde
in India? (Gangar, A. 2006: 10)
Gangar’s words critique the exploitative colonial foundations of lm theory and point to
the fundamental absence of non-Western thought in contemporary conceptions of the
avant-garde. He responds to Indian art critic and scholar Geeta Kapur’s call for a radical
re-envisioning of ‘Avant-garde,’ that accounts for cultural difference, socio-economic reali-
ties, and transnational ows of capital in a post-colonial world.
…Asia/Africa/Australia, not to speak of Latin America, look for a new formalism,
an extension of language based on cultural difference and political urgencies which,
because of the shared history of the 20th century (via capitalism/imperialism), im-
plicates the artists in global questions: of location and the appropriate forms of
political redress from their vantage point. These artists, living in societies riven with
contradictions, ask for synthesizing universals, for visionary and vanguard initiatives.
(Kapur, G. 1998, as cited in Gangar, A. 2006: 19)

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
476
In her manifesto titled, “Proposition Avant-Garde: A View from the South,” Kapur (2018)
emphasizes the need for an aesthetic conception of the avant-garde that challenges social
injustices created by divisions in gender, race, class, ethnicity, and caste. Indeed, historically,
the term ‘avant-garde’ is fraught in many ways; it has been perceived as unsteady, ailing,
and has even been pronounced dead (Mann, P. 1991: 6-7; Savran, D. 2005). Saloni Mathur
asks what value Kapur might nd in a term that could be seen as a sign of “left melan-
choly” as described by Rosalyn Deutsche (2010 as cited in Mathur, S. 2019: 182). Even as
the avant-garde has always been heavily contested as a concept, it also remains “open to
dispute or redenition” (Ian Christie as cited in O’pray, M. 2003: 1). For Kapur, the term
is very much alive as it continually re-negotiates its internal paradoxes (Mathur 2019: 182).3
While the history of the avant-garde gives us a template for radical disruptions, it is
important to keep alive questions of material practice: It follows that situational poli-
tics—the very site for avant-garde initiatives—should be rescued from subsumption
in the global imaginary. There is need to focus on location (as an archeologist would)
and simultaneously shift paradigms (as a philosopher would): a concept like heterotopia
speaks of “other spaces”—spaces with several places of difference, real and meta-
phoric otherness, and rerouted allusions to “utopias.”4 (Kapur, G. 2018: para. 10).
Kapur’s endeavour to resurrect the avant-garde has been described as a playful, provocative,
and political gesture (Mathur, S. 2019: 183). Gangar’s proposition of Cinema of Prayōga
can be compared to her intervention. In situating the notion of cinematic experimentation
within the socio-political and cultural context of India, Gangar effectively disrupts con-
ceptions of the avant-garde. His conscious rejection of its terminology further delinks the
discourse from a Western paradigm, creating space for an alternative notion of radicality as
envisioned through the lens of a global South.
4. Polycentrism and Pluriversality
Film and media theory have certainly been slow to incorporate perspectives from outside
of the Euro-American-centric paradigm. Ella Shohat and Robert Stam note, “Eurocen-
tricism bifurcates the world into ‘the West and the rest’ and organizes everyday language
into binaristic hierarchies implicitly attering to Europe” (2000: 2). As a call to unthink
Eurocentrism they posit that diverse systems of knowledge within a similar periphery may
be connected (not-withstanding geographical divides), in a manner that could stimulate
3 See Mathur citing John Roberts, “Revolutionary Pathos, Negation, and the Suspensive
Avant-Garde,” in “What Is an Avant-Garde?” special issue, New Literary History 41. no. 4
(Autumn 2010): 717.
4 Also see Michel Foucault, “Of other spaces”.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
477
their “polycentric,” “non-essentialist,” and “multidirectional” afnities (1998: 30; 2000:
322, 367-368; 2003). For the dismantling of colonial epistemologies and systems, they call
for a “polycentric media studies” equipped with “a more exible set of disciplinary and
cross-cultural lenses adequate to the complex politics of contemporary location, while
maintaining openings for agency and resistance” (2003: 9, 17).
In their view, scholarship needs to engage in multicultural, transnational and contrapuntal
ways with knowledge to frame media with an understating of “mutually co-implicated com-
munities” (2003: 17). This necessarily calls for a “polycentric approach,” that constitutes for
them, “a long-overdue gesture toward historical equity and lucidity, a way of re-envisioning
the global politics of visual culture” (1998: 47). Their notion of polycentrism is not limited
by xed spatial centers, but an approach that emphasizes difference, inter-relatedness, and
linkage (1998; 2000; 2003). Its overall aim is not focused on expanding accepted canons of
art, but to investigate what motivations underlie the “production and reception of art at
a global level” (1998: 46) with no culture having “epistemic privilege” (Mohanty, C. 2003:
511). Their idea of inter-relatedness is built on mutual “reciprocity” and “reversibility” as
dened by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, wherein “diverse cultures may come to perceive their
own limitations” (1998: 46).
It can be argued that the spirit of Cinema of Prayōga aligns with the “polycentric, dia-
logical, relational” approach put forth by Shohat and Stam. Gangar notes, “I believe, we
have reached a juncture that needs a fusion (to clear the historical confusion), a term that
captures the ux in its inner self; the integrative prayōga would avoid dualistic paradigms of
west versus east, traditional versus modern (or post-modern, or post-past-modern), etc.”
(2006: 25).
The Cinema of Prayōga framework seeks to reclaim the space for the radical, from a trans-
cultural perspective. While it arises from a culturally specic context, it’s potential is uni-
versal. This is not an “exclusive” construct that seeks to react to imagined binaries such as
East and West (Gangar, A. 2012: 194), but an inclusive paradigm that invites transcultural
explorations in cinema studies while challenging colonial constructs. In his exposition of
the concept, he asks if it is “possible to harness the Indian sense of time and space for cine-
matography while making it oppositional, but inclusive of creative thinking across cultures
and countries?” (Gangar, A. 2012: 191)
I was always uncomfortable with the concept of experimental lm. It is a Euro-Ame-
rican-centric term, which I believe was not deeply rooted. It was too rational and
too western, for me. I also found it exclusivist. Therefore, I wanted to develop an
alternative thought. I personally nd and believe that some English words are inade-
quate if you compare them with Sanskrit alternatives, so I thought why not explore
that? In Sanskrit, there is prex and sufx, and when they become a conjunction, you
know that word. It becomes so beautiful. It can explore the beauty of the word; the
abstraction of the word, literature has that privilege of abstraction. […] Therefore,

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
478
we have to reinvent our own thought and its articulation (Gangar, A. in an interview
with Raghunathan, R. 2014: para 9).
By rejecting the term “avant-garde,” and coining the term “Cinema of Prayōga,” Gangar
actively delinks from Euro-American frameworks in theory and practice. He thereby un-
settles a Western epistemological boundary by performing a prayōgic intervention that de-
monstrates his idea. This deterritorializes the discourse of the avant-garde, foregrounding
a polycentric approach to the study of cinema. The framework facilitates a much-needed
shift within cinema studies allowing for a non-Western approach.
At the time it was proposed, Gangar’s framework resonated for scholars and practitioners
in the eld of experimental cinema internationally. Butler and Mirza identify Cinema of
Prayōga as a key starting point to begin this process “of challenging the dominant US
and Euro-centric histories” (2006: 6). Catherine Elwes, in Installation and the Moving Image,
cites Cinema of Prayōga as one of the “more expansive notions of the cinematic” to have
emerged from “from outside of the Euro-American axis” (2015: 4). Ranjana Raghunathan
frames it as “a bold alternative to understanding not only Indian but also Euro-American
experimental lmmaking practice as an experience of thinking and feeling” (2015). She
notes that Gangar’s concept dissolves “the boundaries between poetry, music, literature,
art, cinema and life; emphasising the privilege of intuitive perception in our experience of
the world” (2014: para 6).
Filmmaker and academic, Ashish Avikunthak considers the framework to be a “theory of
practice” and a “practice of experiment.” He observes that it not only addresses aesthetics
but also engages the “production aspect of cinema” (Avikunthak. A. cited in Gangar, A.
2006: 25). In his opinion, it allows for the study of the emergence of radical forms of
lmmaking in Indian “not just as a mimetic form of Western derivates, but, crucially as a
part of a continuous tradition of innovation in Indian lmmaking practices (Avikunthak.
A. cited in Gangar, A. 2012: 193).
Gangar’s framework can certainly be understood as a ‘pluriversal’ construct.5 It aligns with
Walter Mignolo’s vision, stepping away from “cultural relativism” towards an appreciation
of varied cosmologies that are “connected today in a power differential” (2018: x). Cinema
of Prayōga has the potential to engage difference, through a pluriversal and polycentric
approach, owing to its inherently integrative, relational, and dialogical roots that emerge
from a non-Western paradigm.
5 The term “pluriversality” was coined by Walter Mignolo who advocates “de-linking” as
a “method” and “orientation” towards de-westernization and decoloniality (Mignolo, W.
2012).

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
479
Significantly, it does not privilege visuality or theo-retical discourse but instead engages
with diverse ways of being, doing and knowing. The transcultural and inter-disciplinary
value of a prayōgic approach can be a critical means to bridge connections between
systems of knowledge that resonate with each other even if they are geopolitically or
epistemologically differentiated. In summary, the Cinema of Prayōga framework
challenges notions of the avant-garde and offers a rich alternative, the-reby contributing
towards the project of decolonizing cinema and media studies.
5. Expanding on Prayōga as Praxis
It is useful to further examine the notion of prayōga in Indian philosophy and the arts to
un-derstand how Gangar’s framework can be further articulated in terms of theory and
prac-tice. In the Mīmāṃsā school of Indian philosophy, the word prayōga, signifies
meaningful interpretation of formulated principles or injunctions (vidhi) through
application. One kind of prayōga in this context, is “vidhi-prayōga.” It identifies the
“immediacy of performance” as a desirable quality in the interpretation of texts. The
integration of thought, word, and action into a seamless flow renders prayōga as
performance and act (Tilak, S. 2006: 63-64). ‘Doing’ in this context, is seen as a form of
‘knowing’ and ‘learning’ (Prasad, R. 2009: xxxiii; Char, P.D. 2009: 286-287). R. Brad
Bannon likens Clooney’s definition of prayōga to the act of listening to a melody (śruti) in a
study on Indian classical music. This could be extended to other kinds of reflective
performativity as well, including writing (Jacob, J. 2004).
Prayōga is intrinsically situated, embodied and processual. There is a certain specificity to
the act of prayōga. Francis X. Clooney notes, “Prayōga is an event: a particular happening
in a particular time and place, done by a particular person. It is where the many ritual
connec-tions are realized and actualized. There is no abstract prayōga because, by
definition, it is an occurrence in time and space” (1990: 116-119). The Nātyashāstra, a
much influential an-cient Indian treatise on dance, music, and drama (believed to have
been written by Bharata Muni between 200 BCE -200 CE), elucidates this aspect of
prayōga extensively throughout its text, with a strong emphasis on practice. It categorizes
prayōga into four dramatic styles, bhāratī (the verbal), sāttvatī (the grand), ārabhaṭī (the
energetic), and kaiśikī (the graceful) (Ghosh, M. 1961-67: Chapters 8.7 and 13; Rao, S.
2018).
So, how can prayōga be understood in relation to the idea of theory? Sheldon Pollock argues
that the relationship between śāstra and prayōga has not been adequately examined (1985:
499). Jacob, in a study of the relationship between theory and practice in the Vāstushās-
tra (a traditional Indian treatise on architecture), critiques Pollock’s claim and argues that
śastras embody “the dialectical nature of theory itself ” are in dialogue with practice (2004:
247). He identies different modes of practice, such as “seeing,” “knowing,” and “making”
that occur in the theoretical text, inviting “reciprocity” between theory and practice (Mer-
leau-Ponty: 1968). “Writing as making” and “Making as writing” as Jacob coins it, captures

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
480
this dialectic between theory and practice (2004: 247). This view is shared by scholars such
as Bettina Baumer who argues that Indian artistic traditions epitomize the integration of
theory and practice:
The Indian arts, both in theory (śāstra) and practice (prayōga), are branches of a sin-
gle living tree of Indian culture. They cannot be understood in isolation from other
dimensions of thought and science, myth and ritual, spiritual and secular traditions.
The underlying worldview has crystallized in certain concepts, reecting the unders-
tanding of cosmos and man, of space and time, of form and structure, of the part
and the whole, of body senses and mind…a serious investigation into the interrela-
tedness of all these elds is still a desideratum. (Baumer, B. 2001: xi)
It can therefore be argued that a prayōgic approach to cinema studies, is rooted in mate-
rial practices and explorations of the medium. In Gangar’s denition, prayōga is also the
“experimental portion (of a subject)” that is performative (2006: 24). Thus, Cinema of
Prayōga’s approach which is motivated by lived and felt experiences of cinema, aligns with
arts-based research methods. It asserts the relevance of lmmakers’ journals, process no-
tes, and correspondences, in the construction of pedagogical frameworks and theories of
cinema. These factors make it a valuable platform for embodied dialogue on the nature of
experimentation in cinema, foregrounding an epistemological view from the global South.
5.1 The Yōga in Prayōga
To explore the potential of the Cinema of Prayōga framework further, it is useful to delve
deeper into the etymology of prayōga. As Gangar notes the prex: pra, serves as a propeller
for the word, suggesting an onward movement or ow. The sufx, “yōga” is rooted in the
Sanskrit word ‘yuj’ which has a range of meanings. These include, “uniting, combination,
contact, touch, employment, application, use, charm, spell, incantation, magic, magical art,
substance, deep and abstract meditation, concentration of mind, contemplation of the
Supreme Spirit” (Gangar, A. 2006: 24). Gangar’s evocation of the variously sensory, allu-
ring, mystical, practical, and transcendent connotations of the yōga in prayoga, point to the
potential of this framework as a mode of embodied and philosophical inquiry into cinema.
Prayōga serves as an integrative term that invites connection and dialogue with multiple
streams of thought. It supports an “ecology of aesthetics” that is inclusive, uid, and open
to evolution (Gangar, A. 2006: 11; 2012: 200). The framework seeks to foster a mutuality
through its harmonizing power. This aspect of the framework, it can be argued, is compa-
rable to the creative process of cinema. As Brakhage’s notes, “the integrity or the ecology
of a work of art can override the intrinsic differences between each of us” (Brakhage cited
in Ganguly, S. 1994: 29). Hence, the yōgic dimension of prayōga can be used to enhance its
integrative potential as a transcultural approach to cinema. It allows for an exchange of
diverse approaches and practices of cinema, thereby articulating new aesthetic modalities
of the medium.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
481
Yoga speaks directly to notions of materiality, body, and embodiment, which are critical
areas in cinema and media studies today. Expanding on the philosophy and practice of ‘yōga’
within the framework of Cinema of Prayōga could highlight these aspects further, allowing
for a reimagining of the cinematic body and consciousness from non-Western
genealogical perspectives.
It has been well established in contemporary scholarship that Western philosophy and with
its roots in Cartesian dualisms has historically been unable address questions of the body
and embodiment in relation to lived experience and consciousness (Lefebvre, H., & Ni-
cholson-Smith, D. 1991: 407). At the same time, alternative models of the body
stemming from non-Western epistemologies have not been adequately investigated. In my
view, the model of the body from yoga and its affiliated traditions offers a more integrated
and em-bodied alternative to the default bio-medical body implicated in the embodiment
discourse. The prayōgic framework invites dialogue with yogic models of the body, that are
inherently opposed to divisions between body and mind, human and non-human as well
as matter and spirit. The yogic body can facilitate a delinking the embodiment discourse
from binaristic modes of knowledge production, foregrounding instead, more integrative
cosmologies.
6. A Prayōgic Approach to Experimental Film Aesthetics
A notable feature of avant-garde cinematic tradition is its emphasis on the materiality of the
medium. The radical turn to light as a foundational principle of cinema is a key feature of
post-war North American experimental films and the subject of Wees’ Light Moving in Time:
Studies in the Visual Aesthetics of Avant-garde Film (1992). Wees’ study inquires into the “dialectic
of eye and the camera,” addressing the similarities and differences in processes of cinematic
and human vision (1996: 8). In his view, avant-garde filmmakers engage this relationship
critically by pushing the limits of filmic language and technology to render a visuality that is
much closer to human perception than what mainstream cinema offers. He analyzes the
work of Brakhage, Ernie Gehr, Kenneth Anger, Jordan Belson, and Micheal Snow, noting,
“Using light moving in time, they have translated the sense of sight into filmic art—not
simply an art to be seen, but an art of seeing” (1996: 9).
Wees’ study explores how radical experimentation with light, movement and time
activates the potential of cinema as a “seeing” medium. His argument, which illuminates the
role of light as a foundational material of cinema, is primarily concerned with questions of
visuality and seeing based on models of human vision rooted in Western medical science.
Brakhage’s own writings however, often evoke the power of cinema beyond the “metaphors
on vision” that he is famously known for (1963). The testimonies of American avant-garde
filmmakers about their work often reveal phenomenological approaches and results that
exceed visuality, reflecting multisensorial and affective qualities of light as a medium of
cinema. The occular-centric history of cinema studies has, in my view, limited our ability to
appreciate cinema as a fully embodied praxis. As Rebecca Sheehan asserts, avant-garde film
has not been sufficiently credited for its ability to “do philosophy” and make truth. (2020: 3)

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
482
I propose that a prayōgic approach to experimental lm could allow for a deeper examination
of how artists engage the interrelated principles of “light, movement, and time” that Wees
frames as the basic principles of cinema. Employing a prayōgic approach, in my view, neces-
sarily requires that we map questions of visuality in cinema within more critically embodied
frameworks that account for lived experience, being and consciousness.
In a letter to Michael McLure, Brakhage notes that he sees the lmmaker, as “a collector of
light, 24 hours a day” and a “conditioner of the light entering the magic box” that can be held
in one’s hand while the speed at which light encounters the surface of the lm can be regula-
ted (Brakhage quoted in Luna, C. 2011: 242)6. His cinema attests to how light as an energetic
medium inspires the lmmaker and is channeled through lm form to audiences who are also
then impacted by it.
Light undoubtedly continues to be both a medium and a muse for lmmakers in the lineage
of the American avant-garde. Experimental lmmaker Jennifer Reeves notes, “Some quality
of light in the work of one lmmaker will inspire and open a door permitting another to
continue to push forward with their own work. This was the gift [Brakhage’s] lms gave to
me” (Reeves quoted in Kennedy: 2018). Nathaniel Dorsky, an experimental lmmaker who
was also inuenced by Brakhage, describes cinema as a “light sculpture in time.” (2003: 42,
18). The idea of visual renewal in a lm, also central to Brakhage’s work, is expressed in terms
of absolute nowness by Dorsky whose philosophy of lm goes beyond formal aesthetics of
light and sight, touching upon cinmema’s “devotional” potential.
But lm at its transformative best is not primarily a literary medium. The screen or
the eld of light on the wall must be alive as sculpture, while at the same time expres-
sing the iconography within the frame. Beyond everything else, lm is a screen, lm is
a rectangle of light, lm is light sculpture in time. How does a lmmaker sculpt light
in harmony with its subject matter? How can light be deeply in union with evocation?
How do you construct a temporal form that continues to express nowness to the
audience? (Dorsky, N. 2003: 42)
Dorsky’s words capture light as an energetic force which renders cinema with powers of
transformation. He points to a “concordance” between “lm and human metabolism.”
He sees the moving image, as a “metaphor for our being” and evokes its ‘“transformative
power” as well as its “relationship to (our) well-being” (2003: 17).
Experimental lm studies could certainly benet by drawing from epistemological approa-
ches that center the practice of lmmaking. Explorations with light by lmmakers in the
avant-garde tradition could be further articulated if one were to use a prayōgic approach. The
6 Luna quotes from Brakhage’s personal communication, November 1965.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
483
focus on lmmaking as a performance and an event, in the Cinema of Prayōga framework,
and its roots in the radical materiality of yoga. offers a platform for greater appreciation of
the cinema as an embodied medium, The application of a prayōgic approach also serves to
expand Wees’ concept of ‘light moving in time.’
As a practitioner of both experimental lm and yoga, I nd that both embodied practices
radically engage the materiality of the medium. In particular, the materiality of light in ex-
perimental cinema can be compared to that of breath in yoga. The primal place that light
occupies in the North American lineage of experimental cinema could be seen as analo-
gous to the role of breath in yoga practice. In most yoga traditions, breath (as prāṇa of vita
life-force) is the foundational principle of existence.7 Through techniques of ‘prāṇayama’
or breath regulation, breath is harnessed to clear blockages for the smooth ow of energy
in the body, focus the mind and experience the body multidimensionally, activating subtle
layers of perception. The channeling of prāṇa allows the practitioner to experience altered
and heightened states of consciousness. Ultimately this is intended to enable the transfor-
mation of matter to spirit.
Comparing the material and embodied poetics of experimental lmmaking and yoga, I he-
reby propose a point of resonance between light in cinema and breath in yoga. Light is sha-
ped in time and through movement to produce cinema just as breath is mediated through
the living body in yoga. In other words, breath and light are collected, mediated, manipula-
ted, and transformed through the mechanisms in cinema and the human body respectively.
The above statement encapsulates a prayōgic approach to experiment lm in a comparative
context. Articulating the yoga and prayōga of cinema can help advance an embodied appre-
ciation of the medium tapping into its energetic and affective qualities. This aligns with the
need to rewrite cinema’s occularcentric and liberate it from colonial frameworks through
more embodied and non-Western approaches. Gangar’s manifesto, has the potential to
be further expanded to support such forms of inquiry into experimental lm, through a
comparative media philosophical lens.
The prayōgic framework aligns with my own artistic practice and study of lm and media.
My experience of learning yoga brought about a personal awareness and curiosity about
breath as an energetic force. The Upanishads (a body of philosophical texts from India
dated roughly between 700-500 B.C.E.) credit breath as superior to all the senses, indes-
tructible and the same Brahman, which signies the universal eternal soul and absolute
reality (Jacobs, A. 2007). Concepts of breath as vital energy and life-force across various
spiritual traditions, serve to expand notions of embodiment beyond the ve senses to more
affective registers. (Škof, L., & Berndtson, P. 2018). Breath in cinema is an emerging area
of scholarship, that aligns with this approach (Quinlivan, D. 2014; Greene, L. 2017; Rose,
7 Classical/ in the lineage of Patanjali

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
484
A. 2017). Foregrounding breath studies is a prayōgic intervention that also serves to advance
feminist media studies, cross-cultural media philosophy and practice-based research into
cinema. The yogic body can also be conceptualized as a cinema of universal consciousness.
With breath at the root of yogic cosmologies, could the Cinema of Prayōga framework
help further imagine the possibility of a breathing cinema? My own research takes this
strand of investigation forward, through the conceptualization of a Cinema of Breath
(Subramanian, K. 2022).
Wees credits Brakhage more than any other lmmaker as having the ability to translate
sensuous knowledge into cinematic form or “Giving Sight to the Medium” as he puts it.
(1992: 77). While Brakhage’s cinema can be framed as a “metaphor” on “vision” (1963),
his cinema and writings allude to more than vision. He notes, “my display of visions […]
came to the lm window […] directly from my physical self, the rhythms and tones of my
biological response, my very breath and organic breadth of being (2001: 39).
Film history had until recently ignored the contributions of women lmmakers like Marie
Menken whose work deserves more critical attention. Menken’s gestural, free-form came-
rawork and uidity, in particular her lm Visual Variations of Noguchi (1945) greatly inuen-
ced Brakhage’s style of lmmaking. Melissa Ragona notes that Menken’s engagement with
lm as a perceptual medium was like “cinematographic writing with light.” The produc-
tion of dynamic, and multidimensional imagery in this lm, seems to invert the “plasticity
of sculpture and the sculptural aspects of the lm.” According to Ragona, Menken told
Brakhage that her lm “was an attempt to capture ‘the ying spirit of movement within
these solid objects’” (Ragona, M. 2007: 23, 31) It can be argued that both Brakhage and
Menken produced more than a “seeing” cinema; their work exemplies a cinema that is
embodied, and that breathes. It can be explored through their cinematographic and editing
style as well as the formal aesthetics of the work and the aesthetic experience it generates.
The Cinema of Prayōga framework allows for deeper readings of artists such as Menken
and Brakhage for whom lmmaking was a kind of yoga that integrated all the elements of
the body, space, time, and the senses.
7. Conclusion
This paper demonstates how Cinema of Prayōga can contribute to the discourse of ex-
perimental lm by addressing contemporary concerns in the eld. The framework clearly
provides a decolonial methodology that pioneerse non-Western approaches towards con-
ceptualizing the avant-garde. It contributes to the growth of polycentric ecologies of aes-
thetics in media studies and brings into dialogue epistemologies from the global South.
The framework emphasizes questions of materiality, foregrounding art and practice-based
research pedagogies. It allows for greater engagement with diverse cosmologies, generating
new transcultural modes of inquiry into the medium. The roots of the framework in em-
bodied and contemplative modes of practice help advance questions of being and cons-
ciousness in cinema, highlighting alternative genealogies of media and embodiment. Some

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
485
suggestions for the expansion and development of the framework of Cinema of Prayōga
are summarized below.
There is innite potential to productively engage with the cosmologies of diverse cinemas
through these alternative modes of prayōgic inquiry. The emergence of newer interdisci-
plinary, transcultural approaches to lm and media, theories of new materialities, affect
and non-representation also provide fertile ground for forging new connections with the
Cinema of Prayōga framework. A deeper inquiry into the philosophy and practice of yōga
(which forms the etymological roots of prayōga) could potentially enhance the discourse of
embodiment and radical cinema. Mark Singleton describes yoga as a “oating technology
between various religious systems” that stems from Tibetan Buddhism, Tantric Susm, and
several other faithscapes (Mallinson, J. & Singleton, M. 2017; Hatley, 2007).
In my view, a key step for the development of the Cinema of Prayōga framework could be
a critical expansion of its roots, as recommended by Gangar, beyond contructs of nation
and culture. Intensifying the anti-casteist and decolonial potential of the framework could
help to expand notions of prayōga beyond classical and canonical Sanskrit texts such as the
Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas to an appreciation of Dalit, Su and interfaith yogic
perspectives on embodiment. Finally, an active exploration of vernacular, folk, and unde-
rrepresented traditions of embodiment and prayōga would help expand the philosophical
breadth of the framework, allowing it to achieve a greater pluriversality through its recog-
nition of several heterotopias.
8. Bibliography
Bannon, R. B. (2015). Apophatic measures: Toward a Theology of Irreducible Particularity. Doctoral
Dissertation, Harvard Divinity School.
Baumer, B. (2001). Introduction. In Baumer, B. & Vatsyayan, K. (Eds.), Kalātattvakośa: A
Lexicon of Fundamental Concepts of The Indian Arts, (Vol. 2). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pu-
blishers.
Brakhage, S. (1963). Metaphors on Vision. In Sitney P. A. (Ed.) Film Culture, unpaginated,
New York.
Brakhage, S. (2001). Chicago Review Article. Chicago Review, 47, 38-41.
Brakhage, S., & Haller, R. A. (1982). Brakhage Scrapbook: Collected Writings, 1964-1980.
Burney, S. (2012). Pedagogy of the Other: Edward Said, Postcolonial Theory, and Strate-
gies for Critique (Monograph). Counter points, (Vol. 417). Peter Lang. http://www.jstor.org/

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
486
stable/42981703
Butler, B., & Mirza K. (Eds.). (2006). Cinema of Prayōga: Indian Experimental Film & Video,
1913-2006. no.w.here.
Char, P. D. (2009). Mimamsa Ethics. In Prasad R. (Ed.), A Historical-Developmental Study Of
Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals (pp. 272-292). Concept Publishing Company.
Chinweizu. (1975). The West and the Rest of Us: White Predators, Black Slavers, and the African
Elite, New York: Random House.
Clooney, F. X. (1990). Thinking Ritually: Rediscovering the the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā of Jaimini.
Gerhard Oberhammer, ed., Publication of the de Nobili Research Library, (Vol. XVN, pp.
116-119). Vïenna: Institute for Indology, University of Vienna.
Dorsky, N. (2003). Devotional Cinema. Tuumba Press.
Elwes, C. (2015). Installation and the Moving Image, Columbia University Press.
Easwaran, E. (2007). The Upanishads (2nd ed.). Nilgiri Press.
Experimenta India. (n.d.-a). Cinema of Prayoga. Retrieved June 11, 2022 from http://experi-
menta.in/cinema-of-prayoga/
Experimenta India. (n.d.-b). Excavating Indian Experimental Film. Retrieved June 21, 2022 from
http://experimenta.in/texts/
Foucault, M., & Miskowiec, J. (1986). Of Other Spaces. diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.
Gangar, A. (2006). The Cinemā of Prayōga. In B. Butler and K. Mirza (Eds.), Cinema of
Prayōga. Indian Experimental Film and Video 1913–2006 (pp. 9-26). no.w.here.
Gangar, A. (2012). The Moving Image: Looped, to be Mukt! 1–the Cinemā Prayōga Cons-
cience. The Moving Image Review & Art Journal (MIRAJ) 1(2), 189-203.
Ganguly, S. (1994, Summer). Stan Brakhage–The 60th Birthday Interview. Film Culture, (78),
18-38.
Ghosh, M. (1961-67). The Natyashastra, Ascribed to Bharata-Muni: Chapters 1-36, (Vol. 2), The

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
487
Asiatic Society and Manisha Granthalaya.
Greene, L. (2017). The Labour of Breath: Performing and Designing Breath in Cinema.
Music, Sound, and the Moving Image, 10(2), 109-133.
Hatley, S. (2007). Mapping the Esoteric Body in the Islamic Yoga of Bengal. History of
Religions, 46(4), 351-368.
Jacob J. (2004). The Architectural Theory of the Mānasāra, Doctoral Dissertation, McGill Uni-
versity Libraries.
Jacobs, A. (Trans.) (2007). The Principal Upanishads: The Essential Philosophical Foundation of
Hinduism. London: Watkins Publishing.
Kapur, G. (2000). What’s New in Indian Art: Canons, Commodication, Artists on the
Edge. In Pal, P. (Ed.), Reections on the Arts of India, Marg Publications.
Kapur, G. (2018). Proposition Avant-Garde: A View from the South. Art Journal, 77(1),
87-89.
Kennedy, C. (2018). Existence is Song: A Stan Brakhage Retrospective: January to Decem-
ber. The World Viewed. Retrieved June 11, 2022 from https://theworldviewed.com/2013/
existence-is-song-a-stan-brakhage-retrospective-january-to-december-2018/.
King, S. B. (1991). Buddha Nature. SUNY Press.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The Production of Space (Vol. 142). Blackwell:
Oxford.
Luna, C. (2011). The Flame Is Ours: The Letters of Stan Brakhage and Michael McClure 1961–
1978. Big Bridge. Retrieved June 1, 2022 from http://www.bigbridge.org/BB15/2011_
BB_15_FEATURES/Luna_McClure_Brakhage_Feature/THE_FLAME_IS_OURS.pdf.
Mallinson, J., & Singleton, M. (2017). Roots of Yoga. Penguin UK.
Mann, P. (1991) The Theory-Death of the Avant-Garde. Indiana University Press.
Mathur, S. (2018). A Response to Kapur’s “Proposition Avant-Garde”. Art Journal, 77(1),
90-94.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
488
Mathur, S. (2019). A Fragile Inheritance: Radical Stakes in Contemporary Indian Art. Duke Uni-
versity Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The Visible and the Invisible: Followed by Working Notes. Northwes-
tern University Press.
Mignolo, W. D. (2012). Delinking, Decoloniality & Dewesternization: Interview with Walter
Mignolo (Part II), Critical Legal Thinking. Retrieved May 1, 2022 from http://criticallegal-
thinking.com/2012/05/02/delinking-decoloniality-dewesternization-interview-with-wal-
ter-mignolo-part-ii/
Mignolo, W. D. (2018). Foreword: On pluriversality and multipolarity. In Constructing the
Pluriverse (pp. ix-xvi). Duke University Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity Through Anti-
capitalist Struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in culture and Society, 28(2), 499-535.
O’Pray, M. (2003). Avant-garde Film: Forms, Themes and Passions (Vol. 17). Wallower Press.
Pollock, S. (1985). The Theory of Practice and The Practice of Theory in Indian Intellec-
tual History. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 499-519.
Prasad, R. (Ed.). (2009). A Historical-Developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Mo-
rals. Concept Publishing Company.
Quinlivan, Davina. (2014). The Place of Breath in Cinema. Edinburgh University Press.
Raghunathan, R. (2014, March 12). Q & A: Amrit Gangar. Prayōga, Possibilities of Cine-
ma, Conversations And Contemplations. Desistlm. https://desistlm.com/q-a-amrit-gan-
gar-prayoga-possibilities-of-cinema/
Ragona, M. (2007). Swing and Sway: Marie Menken’s Filmic Events. In Robin Blaetz (Ed.),
Women’s Experimental Cinema (pp. 20-44). Duke University Press.
Rao, S. (2018, August 30). Bharata’s Natya-Shastra – Some Reections. Sreenivasarao’s Blogs.
Retrieved April 1, 2022 from https://sreenivasaraos.com/2012/09/13/bharatas-nat-
ya-shastra-some-reections/.
Rose, A. (2016). Breath in the Technoscientic Imaginary. Medical Humanities, 42(4), e31-e35.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
489
Savran, David. (2005). The Death of the Avantgarde. TDR/The Drama Review, 49(3), 10-
42. Retrieved April 1, 2022 from http://www.jstor.org.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/stable/4488655.
Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1998). Narrativizing Visual Culture: Towards a Polycentric Aes-
thetics. In Mirzoeff, N. (Ed.), The Visual Culture Reader (Vol. 2), 37-59, Psychology Press.
Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (2000). Unthinking Eurocentricism: Causes, Manifestations, and Solutions.
London: Routledge.
Škof, L., & Berndtson, P. (Eds.). (2018). Atmospheres of Breathing. SUNY Press.
Stam, R., & Shohat, E. (2005) Travelling Multiculturalism. In A. Loomba, S. Kaul, M. Bunzl,
A. Burton, J. Esty (Ed.s.), Postcolonial Studies and Beyond (pp. 293-316) Duke University Press.
Sobchack, V. (1992). The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton
University Press.
Subramanian, K. (2022, July 2). Cinema of Breath. Kalpana Subramanian. https://kalpana-
subramanian.com/cinemaofbreath
Tilak, S. (2006). Understanding Karma: In Light of Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophical Anthroplogy &
Hemeneutics. International Centre for Cultural Studies.
Wees, W. C. (1992). Light Moving in Time Studies in the Visual Aesthetics of Avant-Garde Film,
University of California Press.

MHJournal Vol. 13 (2) | Año 2022 - Artículo nº 18 (211) - Páginas 471 a 490 - mhjournal.org
490
Licencia Creative Commons
Miguel Hernández Communication Journal
mhjournal.org
Cómo citar este texto:
Kalpana Subramanian (2022): Expanding on the Cinema of Prayōga as an Embodied
Approach to Experimental Film, en Miguel Hernández Communication Journal, Vol. 13 (2),
pp. 471 a 490. Universidad Miguel Hernández, UMH (Elche-Alicante). DOI: 10.21134/
mhjournal.v13i.1451