To listen properly is hard job and probably one of the toughest skills in the art of communication. Good listening has nothing to do with proper functioning of one’s auditory organs, which is assumed to be inevitable. Good listening in the sense we are interested in is not a biological factor, but a psychological one. Your auditory orangs may be in perfect order, when actually you cannot use them creatively. Creative listening implies your being efficient in the art of concentration; in other words, you concentrate on what one is saying so as to make sure that you hear all that is said. At the same time you are concentrating to hear all that is being said, you are also thinking fast, digesting what is being said, allowing your mental faculties and your memory to accept that which you understand and to reject that which you do not understand, sorting out what you do not understand and storing them somewhere in your brain for future discussion and all at the same time rationalizing what you hear, accepting that which you find rational and rejecting that which you do not find rational.
After you must have listened creatively to what you have been told, then you can respond if the need arises. It is quite proper that you respond because the process of response enhances the art of communication. But your response ought to be only a necessary response; a response that will improve your understanding. This response should involve your mentioning some things you have been told but which do not understand, or politely questioning the rationality of some of the speaker’s argument. But your response must be constructive; must enhance the communicative worth. It should not be an unnecessary argument, or an opportunity for you to express dissatisfaction. The ability properly aids communication and understanding

Every artist’s work unless he be a hermit, creating solely for his own satisfaction and with on need of sales, is to some extent ‘socially conditioned’, He depends upon the approval of his patrons. Social conditioning is of course part of the field of study of the social anthropologist, yet I am not aware that the social conditioning of artists has ever been seriously studied. That such study is needed for the proper appraisal of traditional African art is evident enough when we note the ingenuous assumption, current in many writing on the subject, that the carver’s hand is so closely controlled by the custom of centuries that the credit for any creative imagination which is apparent in his work is due not to him but to the long succession of his predecessors. Of course, there is an element of truth in this view of the tribal as copyist; but it is hardly more valid for the Africa than for the European artist. In both cases the work of art is the outcome of a dialectic between the informing tradition and the individual genius of the artist, and in both the relative strength of these two forces may vary almost infinitely. To assess the personal ingredient in an African carving is no easy matter, especially if one is confronted with a rare or unique piece in an unfamiliar style; but the considerations involved are much the same as those employed in European art criticism.

These two factors the altitude and the weather, tend separately and together to defeat the climber. The height weakens, slows him down; it forces him to spend days and nights in the courses of his assault on the summit; the weather, besides adding to the demand of his energy and moral fortitude, conspires to deny him the time he needs to complete his mission. Whereas in lower mountains and on easy ground the weather may be no more than a handicap, in the high Himalayas it is decisive, regardless of terrain.
The deduction to be drawn from these two factors is was clear enough. We must either so fortify ourselves that we could continue, without detriment, to live and have our being above the limit of natural acclimatization, or, better still, we must solve the problem of speed. It was desirable; in fact, that we must meet both these requirements and thus give to those chosen to attempt the summit and to their supporting teams some measures of insurance against the vagaries of the weather, for safety in mountain climbing is as much a matter of swiftness as of sureness of foot. Either or both could be achieved only by the administration of oxygen in sufficient quantities to make up for the deficiency in the air, and for the duration of the upward journey above the limit of successful acclimatization