I should know about this. Specially so after the experience I've been having in the past many days. For years I have not been too sensitive to the feelings and aspirations of people, and true to my zodiac sign, I've lived like a bull in a china shop. It is only in the last few years that my sensibilities to the psychological needs of human beings have been aroused, and there have been brief investigations on my part by looking into my own mind, about what an artist is venturing to do by creating a work of art. Since I am not too well read on the philosophical basis of aesthetics or various past theories on aesthetics, it may well turn out that what I am trying to say is out and out banal. Yet even if it is banal, I am compelled to spell it out clearly at the present moment, because it expresses my most ardent need at the present.
Any work of art, as everyone knows, seeks to express the artist. A dancer performs a well rehearsed dance only in order to please her audience, and what she ardently seeks in return is, first of all, acceptance. And if it is there, she would be gladder if there is praise. The artist feels somewhat incomplete within himself, and in a desperate bid to seek completeness puts out his product. The very fact that there is a work of art is an indication to all people that there is a person seeking acceptance. The least that the public can do is to give it to him in whatever degree one is capable. It is only after satisfying the initial and most basic level of acceptance, may a genuine praise be given if the artistic piece deserves it, or in the event that it does not deserve it, just leave it at that. Criticism, if it has to happen, could be in the form of 'suggestions' to help improve the technique, or refine the work presented. In fact, a good critic can invest a meaning into a work of art even when an author obviously didn't even intend it! The only negative spin-off that this approach can have is that the author could become terribly self-important and that would be harmful to him.
Quite often, criticism can be quite scathing, and I myself have been guilty of having indulged in such an activity. There have been instances where I have been quite caustic in the past, and it is only in the recent past that I am trying to improve myself. I draw attention to the fact that the critic too is seeking acceptance - only he is doing that by using the product of another man's soul, rather than present an expression of his own soul. The critic too seeks approval on the grounds that his criticism is 'deep', 'perceptive' , 'innovative' and so on. Unfortunately, there is not much business in the 'art of criticising a critic', and he usually gets away scot free. A critic get his psychological sustenance when he is discussed and talked about and also when he is quoted, but his product is in a way parasitic, and feeds on another man's soul.
Yesterday I was witnessing what I would have dismissed earlier as a very badly made film. The actors were overacting, the humour was mediocre and crude, and everything was overstated in many aspects. Then again I realised that the author of the film may be trying with all his heart to seek acceptance. If a critic summarily dismisses the piece as 'not worth considering' we may be making a big mistake in humane terms. A prickly plant like a rose bush may be ardently seeking to express its beautiful aspects by putting forth a striking crimson flower together with fragrance and nectar, inviting bees to befriend it, but if the bees reject the flower just because the plant has thorns, that would be a travesty against nature. Hence even while criticising a work of art, it is necessary to consider the humane aspects and be subtle and moderate in the criticism.
Each man and each woman is seeking acceptance in this world, and I feel the world would be a much better place if it is given freely without witholding. Then again, what is given should be genuine and presented as truthfully as possible, and in instances where nothing pleasant can be stated without being untruthful, the critic may be advised to restrain himself and keep his opinion to himself.
2 comments:
Sometimes I wonder too whether silence can be a dear sort of acceptance. Whether in a rush to comment we lose some of the sense of the profound. Writers are always going to be invested in the words they put together and they can, should, could, represent the deeper ponderings within and thus are deeply attached to identity. But writing too, will always be invitational in nature and with that invitation there will always be a choice by the reader to read, to not read, to share their response to not share their response, not to mention how they choose to phrase their response. It opens a wide range of diversity of words, meaning, not to mention emotions, all for the developing of more mature perspective of topics, senses, self, and others. It is really quite magnificent that we communicate with one another with such precision at times, and at others find it so difficult to get a point across. But there is always hope that we can do better.
Thanks for the mature advice. At times I get too carried away with my own wants that I fail to see it in a balanced way. Now on a mature consideration of your views, I totally agree with you, and a writer, once he has doled out an invitation to read a piece must realise that he has to put it forward for the consideration of the world unconditionally.
At this point, all I have to say is that I agree with you one hundred percent. Thanks.
Post a Comment