nobody likes critics...at some point of time everyone has borne the brunt of harsh critical appraise .It is hard on the psyche(with cause and effect) intimidating ,overly/beastly patronizing,and more than anything seems to give the preacher a sense of sadistic satisfaction which is the worst part .many fine decisions turn awry at the slightest thought of a melancholyboring and painful critical session.also it can be slow and deliberate at times sometimes unseen and at other times very vague but all too obvious.
many are of the opinion that it is a healthy practice and an exercise to modulate and harness our capabilities technically - that may as well be true (when this institution is implicated in its true spirit).but things turn ugly when criticism becomes deliberate and is done for the sake of demoralising someone - which also upto a certain level depends on what the person being criticized considers as 'demoralizing or emotionally threatening/draining'also as it isn't easy for many to accept being ranked below what they think is their rightful position , many go over the edge taking drastic measures such as self-detention or develop suicidal tendencies or end up being segrated social outcasts.
however one should not get the idea that our degradation is the examiner's greatest trimuph .the examiner may just have a different point of view/opinion on a subject or may not have the versatility of ideas of the examinee (or bluntly speaking not have full knowledge of them) an examiner with enough goodwill intent will explain the reasons of being negated without sarcasm and as a gesture of acknowledgement may even offer help to the examinee
comparing itself is a hard task.it cannot be determined whether or not we tend to be true to ourselves, we are humans and obviously either due to preconceived prejudices tend to overlook sound facts often failing to differenciate between a prodigious entitity and a layman. however critical views reflect the mindset of the reviewer upto a certain point it shows whether the person engaged in criticizing is playing with one's insecurities ,whether the person is a hypocrite when it comes to the implication of ideas in practice.at other times it reflects the twisted ideas that goes on in the minds of both the individuals involved
some people compare critical mechanisms as pro neo-bullish ideologies which are fully commited to harassment albeit a psychological one. some have even agreed critics need mental ailment and a lot of love. some have even called it pure negative energy at work. maybe it is process of evolution at work and in a few years we find ourseives in a 'highly organized analytical world/a highly pessimistic collective group' based on the moment to moment choices we make.
sometimes critics do not meet the criteria of being one.... such pseudo-half wit-makebelieve/fake intellectuals have been responsible for the end of many rising and established talents which even sometimes has even consolidated their own reigns.this is true in all walks of life - and more than often is a reason for lack of revolution/change that is necessary for progress.it tends to trap life into a set pattern of grids and strong conservationism
it has often been argued that critics are what they claim us to be i.e people who've practically given up doing what they comment upon and therefore can be called sore losers.it is not necessary critics are always failure because there is no pure defination of failure as there is no pure defination of winning nobody is born a genius or a dunce...........its what when we choose to overide fate and move on .it is our sole decision to let things overwhelm us and remain inure or to look around and endure.whether we allow ourself to break out of a singularity/mould and see - as they say the veiled face of the moon
a question is whether criticism generates indifference directly or indirectly...........what is its potential to harm or benefit us (and if yes then in what way), is it the same for us ?- is it universal for all and what approach do we follow to endear itself to us /us to it ?is it a hit and trial method of trying to improve or degrade ourself in the long run.one thing we'll need to realize sooner or later is that there'll always be a critic whether there is an artist/inventor/philosophist/theorist and we might as well get used to them
we might ask ourselves what critics really mean to us ;individually and collectively as a societyand we may come up with conflicting answersbut maybe we need them.......... to survive we need them and their aura, siphon it into anything we can remotely call love/hate and need to ingest this heavy tonic....and i think is the reason we need maybe we desperately need this..... and maybe it is the need of the hour and maybe it is this difference which counts...which will countand i look forward to it......
many are of the opinion that it is a healthy practice and an exercise to modulate and harness our capabilities technically - that may as well be true (when this institution is implicated in its true spirit).but things turn ugly when criticism becomes deliberate and is done for the sake of demoralising someone - which also upto a certain level depends on what the person being criticized considers as 'demoralizing or emotionally threatening/draining'also as it isn't easy for many to accept being ranked below what they think is their rightful position , many go over the edge taking drastic measures such as self-detention or develop suicidal tendencies or end up being segrated social outcasts.
however one should not get the idea that our degradation is the examiner's greatest trimuph .the examiner may just have a different point of view/opinion on a subject or may not have the versatility of ideas of the examinee (or bluntly speaking not have full knowledge of them) an examiner with enough goodwill intent will explain the reasons of being negated without sarcasm and as a gesture of acknowledgement may even offer help to the examinee
comparing itself is a hard task.it cannot be determined whether or not we tend to be true to ourselves, we are humans and obviously either due to preconceived prejudices tend to overlook sound facts often failing to differenciate between a prodigious entitity and a layman. however critical views reflect the mindset of the reviewer upto a certain point it shows whether the person engaged in criticizing is playing with one's insecurities ,whether the person is a hypocrite when it comes to the implication of ideas in practice.at other times it reflects the twisted ideas that goes on in the minds of both the individuals involved
some people compare critical mechanisms as pro neo-bullish ideologies which are fully commited to harassment albeit a psychological one. some have even agreed critics need mental ailment and a lot of love. some have even called it pure negative energy at work. maybe it is process of evolution at work and in a few years we find ourseives in a 'highly organized analytical world/a highly pessimistic collective group' based on the moment to moment choices we make.
sometimes critics do not meet the criteria of being one.... such pseudo-half wit-makebelieve/fake intellectuals have been responsible for the end of many rising and established talents which even sometimes has even consolidated their own reigns.this is true in all walks of life - and more than often is a reason for lack of revolution/change that is necessary for progress.it tends to trap life into a set pattern of grids and strong conservationism
it has often been argued that critics are what they claim us to be i.e people who've practically given up doing what they comment upon and therefore can be called sore losers.it is not necessary critics are always failure because there is no pure defination of failure as there is no pure defination of winning nobody is born a genius or a dunce...........its what when we choose to overide fate and move on .it is our sole decision to let things overwhelm us and remain inure or to look around and endure.whether we allow ourself to break out of a singularity/mould and see - as they say the veiled face of the moon
a question is whether criticism generates indifference directly or indirectly...........what is its potential to harm or benefit us (and if yes then in what way), is it the same for us ?- is it universal for all and what approach do we follow to endear itself to us /us to it ?is it a hit and trial method of trying to improve or degrade ourself in the long run.one thing we'll need to realize sooner or later is that there'll always be a critic whether there is an artist/inventor/philosophist/theorist and we might as well get used to them
we might ask ourselves what critics really mean to us ;individually and collectively as a societyand we may come up with conflicting answersbut maybe we need them.......... to survive we need them and their aura, siphon it into anything we can remotely call love/hate and need to ingest this heavy tonic....and i think is the reason we need maybe we desperately need this..... and maybe it is the need of the hour and maybe it is this difference which counts...which will countand i look forward to it......
- Shibaji Ray
B.A.(Hons.) History; I Year
No comments:
Post a Comment