Thursday, October 04, 2012

Art for Art's sake?

A little chat about the music director Ismail Darbar triggered off these thoughts.

I really liked the music in Hum Dil de Chuke Sanam, Devdas and even Guzaarish. I used to think Ismail Darbar was very knowledgeable and up-there when it came to classical music. But after the Grammy glory, I was saddened to see him bad-mouthing A R Rahman. He said things like all Rahman does is copy. I somehow lost my respect for Ismail Darbar. It doesn't become of a musician of all people to talk so. I look at all artisites - writers, actors, a special creed because I feel they are truly blessed.

Agreed. Most artists have a built in quirkiness to their personality. Its the quirkiness that kind of brings out the art without any inhibitions. And I respect that quirkiness. Take for instance K Balachander, Kamala Hassan, M F Hussain, Kishore Kumar, Charlie Chaplin, Dali....the list is endless.

Then there is the ego too. A little bit of too I can excuse because again, this is a special lot of people. They didn't conform and so they are here, doing what they want to do. Else, they would be clerks in a bank or ticket inspectors on trains.

What I can't definitely agree is acts of abuse...verbal or physical. Haven't we heard of the real big stars bashing up people just because that 'saab' is in a bad mood? Or even the superstition about a famous director's slap can bring aspiring actors great fortunes!!

Having said that, I think aloud. As fans/listeners what should our stance be? Do we just pick up the good part and say 'oh what a great artist he is'? Does that give artistes the license to have multiple affairs and care a damn for the woman at home?
Or do we take the entire personality into account? I'm yet to decide if an artist's behaviour should/can affect our attitude towards his/her work. I can't make up my mind.
Wonder what most people do?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi! Nothing gives me more joy than receiving comments. And when you leave a comment, please do leave a name.