This is one of those quotations that strike like a bolt of lightning. ‘Oh! Yes, indeed.’ We exclaim, and then ramifications of the idea sink in as the mind ruminates on it. It is said that when we listen to someone speak, we should look inwards to examine whether we are listening in order to understand what is being said, or merely to answer. Our ego, whether involuntarily and subconsciously, or out of a recognised — deliberately fed — sense of one-upmanship, can get in the way of appreciating and being enriched, potentially, by what we hear. The ego could even be a barrier to a basic and clear understanding of what we hear. So too, when we are exposed to something, say an artistic creation or crafted object, are we instantly ticking off points, rushing to evaluate and criticise? Strictly speaking, ‘to criticise’ should be in line with ‘critique’, to address various aspects of the creation keeping in mind a wide range of aspects like novelty, originality, social relevance, place with other works of that genre; for art, form and content: how the form expresses the stated or clearly implied content; for crafted objects of use: how well they can be used for the intended function; for aspects like the elements of form, colour, texture, tone, line, shape, mass and space for visual form, and their creative utilisation, in terms, of the principles of composition and other aspects of the creation. Yet, in common parlance, to criticise has a negative connotation because all too often criticism can degenerate into mere fault-finding. With a word or sneer, one can demolish the elaborate creation, the result of much thought and labour and creative fervour. A small undeniable imperfection can be given undue importance while ignoring or glossing over many positive qualities. Deepak Hiranandani
