formulated with logical rigour. If we resist the temptation of indulging in self-glorification and decide to face reality, we shall have to admit that nothing significant has been done in any of the three fields: aesthetics, criticism and creative writing. It is a saddening realization that this all-round poverty is not a recent phenomenon in Maharashtra; it has been there for decades. That there should spring into existence new aesthetic theories in this atmosphere of poverty seems to be almost impossible. We shall have to come to the same conclusion about all disciplines that are given the general name of 'Humanities^. It is only when sooiety is vibrating with life and vigour in all its aspects, traditions and institutions that the possibility is created for the emergence of new theoretical systems. Great problems arise in such a living society; and the traditions in that society throw up great men endowed with genius to tackle them. No such problems have arisen in our art-tradition; and we have not produced great geniuses to tackle them. i To be honest, we shall have to begin at the beginning. Artists should try to be conscious of what they are trying to do; while they are endeavouring to attain self-awareness as artists, they should also communicate their findings to society. On the other hand, the art-critics must put away blinkers of arbitrary theories and examine their genuine and spontaneous responses to works of art. Mere enthusiasm is not an adequate equipment for art-critics; they must also have a well cultivated sensibility, necessary scholarship, tenacity and seriousness of purpose. They must acquire the intellectual skills necessary for formulating their responses explicitly and with logical precision. Criticism should be directed to a work of art and neither to the artist nor to the critic. It is necessary to examine carefully the complex theoretical structure tht emerges from the what the self-conscious artists and well-equipped critics say about works of art; one must do this with deft fingers, and while doing this delicate operation one must scrupulously avoid using the clumsy instrument called 'one-art: one-essence fallacy5. We must explore whether the same or analogous concepts are found to exist in different arts. It is needless to-a exphasize the importance of academic integrity in the whole process. It is here that we can hope to get much help from the Western aesthetic theories. We must of course resist the temptation to rely only on somebody like Clive Bell or Colling-wood or Osbomejust because their books are easily accessible. The Western aesthetic structure is very comprehensive, complex, and well-built. It has received solid support from art-tradition on the one hand and the tradition of philosophical thinking on the other. It is necessary to study in detail the different constituents of this vast structure, to evaluate them, to examine their mutual bearings with regard to one another, to construct a conceptual map. It is for them to ascertain where w and our theories can be placed on this map. All this will require a long time. We shall need, besides untiring patience a well-developed ability to think on the abstract, philosophical plane. The number of people gifted with this specific ability is ' much smaller than we suppose. It is certainly not universal; further, it is not necessarily seen in people who are intelligent in other ways. No single individual will be able to cope with all the tasks listed above. It is in fact a sort of project that only a group of researchers, scholars, critics, philosophers can tackle. While this^workis being done on the plane of theory, we must at the same time maintain continuous January-March 1984 65