|
Museum |
||
|
The realm of values |
Talking of Ranjitsingh's art with the willow, A.G.Gardiner refers to
the
difference in the way Shakespeare and Schiller evoke the sense of
tragedy.
Shakespeare drops a kerchief and crystallises tragedy in that act,
whereas
Schiller, even when he sets a whole city on fire, falls short of the
ideal
evocation of the tragic sense. (Gardiner's comparison of
Ranjitsingh's
flick
of the wrist to the dropping of the kerchief is a different tale - we
need
not go into it here). In music too, there are Shakespeares and
Schillers -
those who condense the spirit of the raga in a few deft touches and
those
who, inspite of the most elaborate excursions into a raga, fail to
emphasise
its intimate beauties. The critic's function is not to praise the one
and
pillory the other - but merely to bear witness to the artistic
integrity
of
both the exercises.
There are many occasions when Shakespeare himself
becomes a writer a la Marlowe - if not Schiller. These occasions only
prove
that "humankind can bear no more".
In the music criticism of today, Shakespeare and Schiller are
resurrected
to
do the "battle of the books" where Swift left it.
There are those who
equate
music with their conception of a shimmering empyrean on music and
attribute
to it a distinction of phlogiston. There are the Calibans and Ariels
of
music criticism. Both are "inhuman".
Criticism is not a creator of values. It is merely a witness to
values.
The
proper realm of value-creation is the inner vision of beauty which
every
artist attains to in the pursuit of his art. Out of this realm may
arise
both Shakespearean and Schillerian conceptions of tragedy. The
greatness
of
each of them is that he was true to his vision. It is in this
integrity
that
the truth of the art has its being. Phony classicism and aping
athleticism
are both to be decried in music.
Any criticism which makes a fetish
of
either should be dutifully disregarded.
How easy it is, nowadays, for the critic to assume the role of a
lawgiver!
There are even critics who boast of their achievement in "improving"
the
quality of music merely by passing irrelevant strictures through the
inanities and innuendoes of their critical effusion. One must pity
the
critic for his effrontery. But one must pity even more the musician
who
feels obliged to "improve" his music by the standards of the
egregious
critic.
- Musicians must realise that the value of their act derives not from the jackanapeses of critics, but from the integrity of their own vision. The sooner the musicians realize this and seek confirmation of the values of their art in their inner vision, and learnt to treat the spurious critics with the contempt they deserve, the better it would be for the musicians and their art.
- AEOLUS
Posted on August 29, 2002