The Artiste and The Critic Part 2
In the previous issue, we drew up some introductory aspects on the world of music, dance and critique. In this issue, I present to you a mixed bag of opinions.
- Dr. Surya Prasad
"How much space in mainstream media is reserved for art criticism; especially of the classical arts? Other than a handful of English and Indian Language papers, and a few online portals and magazines, we must acknowledge the fact that there is very limited space in mainstream media for dance criticism. Within the publications that do publish reviews on classical dance, most reviews are written by freelance critics and not journalists that are employed by the publication. This is a situation that allows both the publication and the writer to shirk accountability. The only way to avoid this would be to have Publication houses employ journalists who specialise in the arts to write about the arts- and arts that is not limited to fine arts and cinema. Whether all journalists employed by publications today as art reviewers are well-versed enough in the arts is questionable. Which brings me to the need to understand who would make a good critic: He/She should have learnt the art and been on stage at some point. If once a performer, a critic should have moved on from performance and teaching to be able to provide an objective, unbiased review of performance.
Yet another concerning trend is the fact that most reviews today are in fact reports. Some reviews go very little beyond the press release that the artiste would have provided. One of the reasons that has led to this trend is probably the air of intolerance that has developed today in the world of classical arts. Many artistes are highly political, not wanting to hear anything that does not glorify their performances. What purpose is then served here other than boosting the ego of the artiste in question. To be committed in a way that each review would serve for the betterment of art, is a quality that is hard to find today. Even for the committed critic, does time allow for the critic to sit down and speak to the artiste to understand the thought process that goes into a production? Which is why art criticism has given way to just reviews of performance. The purpose of dance criticism or reviewing should be to take the reader on a journey of understanding- understanding not just the performance but the art as well. To hope for an upswing from the current situation of dance criticism or reviewing seems like we are asking for too much!"
- Ms. Jyothi Raghuram
Jyothi Raghuram is a journalist with over two decades experience in both the print and electronic media, having worked with news organizations such as PTI, The Hindu and Indian Express. Her specialized writings on the performing and visual arts have been considered as benchmarks for their comprehensive and in-depth dealing of the subjects.
In contemporary times it is difficult to find constructive criticism and at the same time the artists are not able to take criticism in true sense.Very few critics probably understand the nuances in detail to give the unbiased opinion or criticism.Dancers being an over sensitive, sometimes egoistic,are not able to digest the criticism and so they create their own barriers.Its unfortunate that today dancers lead a superficial life.I feel today young dancers must be strong enough to face the constructive criticism in the right perspective and improve their knowledge about the dance and also their performance so that they are well equipped for these criticisms.On the other hand the critics should be genuine in their criticism who know the art-form in-depth to analyse any performance.According to me students should learn critical appreciation in the correct sense.They should be sporting enough to accept criticism in their stride and learn to evolve and grow in their art-form.So ideally they should also learn critical appreciation.
- Dr. Uma Rele
Anyone who has been keenly involved in the classical arts knows that classical dance or music, or for that matter even languages are bound by a distinct grammar. And within this grammar there is a flexibility that allows one to explore the art in numerous ways. Art must keep with the times and cannot remain static. If artistes chose to give the art a rigid framework, it will not stand the test of time. At the same time, in the name of experiment, one cannot dilute the very grammar on which the art is built. Those who have understood this delicate balance of respecting the grammar and at the same time allowing the art to evolve with the times, have been the torchbearers of their times. And it gives me immense pleasure to note that apart from the several veterans and senior gurus, today's young teachers and choreographers also understand this delicate balance.
As far as critiquing goes, I always insist that a critic must first sit to watch a performance as a rasika. Then deliberate on the details of the performance as a critic. And in this deliberation I chose to give benefit of doubt to the artiste. Nobody is perfect and so minute mistakes or misses will happen, but in every performance there is bound to be beauty and it is this beauty that catches my eye. Considering the times in which we live, the importance given to the classical arts is abysmal to say the least. In times that are not particularly congenial to the classical arts, someone has to stand up to nourish tradition and encourage novelty. So it becomes partly my responsibility as a critic to encourage artistes and the art that they pursue. And even as we labour to encourage the artistes, we often face newspaper editors who are apprehensive about the amount of space given to reviewing classical arts. We rush against deadlines and make our best efforts to submit comprehensive reviews . There have been instances where some editors and staff reporters have edited my reviews and the published review looks ridiculous in comparison with what I had sent. For the reader who is not aware of all this, it creates a certain aversion and puts us in a very uncomfortable situation. What does this leave us with? It leaves us with two victims: critic and critique.
- Dr. Surya Prasad
"How much space in mainstream media is reserved for art criticism; especially of the classical arts? Other than a handful of English and Indian Language papers, and a few online portals and magazines, we must acknowledge the fact that there is very limited space in mainstream media for dance criticism. Within the publications that do publish reviews on classical dance, most reviews are written by freelance critics and not journalists that are employed by the publication. This is a situation that allows both the publication and the writer to shirk accountability. The only way to avoid this would be to have Publication houses employ journalists who specialise in the arts to write about the arts- and arts that is not limited to fine arts and cinema. Whether all journalists employed by publications today as art reviewers are well-versed enough in the arts is questionable. Which brings me to the need to understand who would make a good critic: He/She should have learnt the art and been on stage at some point. If once a performer, a critic should have moved on from performance and teaching to be able to provide an objective, unbiased review of performance.
Yet another concerning trend is the fact that most reviews today are in fact reports. Some reviews go very little beyond the press release that the artiste would have provided. One of the reasons that has led to this trend is probably the air of intolerance that has developed today in the world of classical arts. Many artistes are highly political, not wanting to hear anything that does not glorify their performances. What purpose is then served here other than boosting the ego of the artiste in question. To be committed in a way that each review would serve for the betterment of art, is a quality that is hard to find today. Even for the committed critic, does time allow for the critic to sit down and speak to the artiste to understand the thought process that goes into a production? Which is why art criticism has given way to just reviews of performance. The purpose of dance criticism or reviewing should be to take the reader on a journey of understanding- understanding not just the performance but the art as well. To hope for an upswing from the current situation of dance criticism or reviewing seems like we are asking for too much!"
- Ms. Jyothi Raghuram
Jyothi Raghuram is a journalist with over two decades experience in both the print and electronic media, having worked with news organizations such as PTI, The Hindu and Indian Express. Her specialized writings on the performing and visual arts have been considered as benchmarks for their comprehensive and in-depth dealing of the subjects.
In contemporary times it is difficult to find constructive criticism and at the same time the artists are not able to take criticism in true sense.Very few critics probably understand the nuances in detail to give the unbiased opinion or criticism.Dancers being an over sensitive, sometimes egoistic,are not able to digest the criticism and so they create their own barriers.Its unfortunate that today dancers lead a superficial life.I feel today young dancers must be strong enough to face the constructive criticism in the right perspective and improve their knowledge about the dance and also their performance so that they are well equipped for these criticisms.On the other hand the critics should be genuine in their criticism who know the art-form in-depth to analyse any performance.According to me students should learn critical appreciation in the correct sense.They should be sporting enough to accept criticism in their stride and learn to evolve and grow in their art-form.So ideally they should also learn critical appreciation.
- Dr. Uma Rele
Anyone who has been keenly involved in the classical arts knows that classical dance or music, or for that matter even languages are bound by a distinct grammar. And within this grammar there is a flexibility that allows one to explore the art in numerous ways. Art must keep with the times and cannot remain static. If artistes chose to give the art a rigid framework, it will not stand the test of time. At the same time, in the name of experiment, one cannot dilute the very grammar on which the art is built. Those who have understood this delicate balance of respecting the grammar and at the same time allowing the art to evolve with the times, have been the torchbearers of their times. And it gives me immense pleasure to note that apart from the several veterans and senior gurus, today's young teachers and choreographers also understand this delicate balance.
As far as critiquing goes, I always insist that a critic must first sit to watch a performance as a rasika. Then deliberate on the details of the performance as a critic. And in this deliberation I chose to give benefit of doubt to the artiste. Nobody is perfect and so minute mistakes or misses will happen, but in every performance there is bound to be beauty and it is this beauty that catches my eye. Considering the times in which we live, the importance given to the classical arts is abysmal to say the least. In times that are not particularly congenial to the classical arts, someone has to stand up to nourish tradition and encourage novelty. So it becomes partly my responsibility as a critic to encourage artistes and the art that they pursue. And even as we labour to encourage the artistes, we often face newspaper editors who are apprehensive about the amount of space given to reviewing classical arts. We rush against deadlines and make our best efforts to submit comprehensive reviews . There have been instances where some editors and staff reporters have edited my reviews and the published review looks ridiculous in comparison with what I had sent. For the reader who is not aware of all this, it creates a certain aversion and puts us in a very uncomfortable situation. What does this leave us with? It leaves us with two victims: critic and critique.
Comments
Post a Comment