From Goodreads
Mucha - An Illustrated Life
Roman Neugebauer
I picked this book in the Prague airport on the way home as an afterthought. I'm glad we had a few extra minutes because it was worth the impulse buy. Often those purchases don't pan out as well as this one did, like the house organ. But at about $5, the book not the organ, the stakes weren't that high. It's a quick read and a good miniature biography. There's a lot of interesting stuff in Mucha's life and it is written in an easy style to read. Mucha's aesthetic theories are intriguing too and how they are intertwined in a nationalism and ethnic struggle speak to the condition of late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. He was born and flourished at the dawn of a new age only to die as that dawn was blotted out by the clouds of Nazi Germany. His work's renaissance seems to be being born again at another tempestuous epoch's beginning.
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Monday, January 25, 2016
Assessment of Picasso - Gertrude Stein
So I finished Picasso by Gertrude Stein the other day. I wrote on my Good Reads account "It's a bit of a jarring book to follow, but it reveals a lot about Picasso and Stein without revealing a lot of actual events in either of their lives. It's that which makes the read an interesting one. Unfortunately, or fortunately when I read the book I picture Kathy Bates across from me and I as Owen Wilson having Picasso explained to me. Thanks a lot Woody Allen". I gave it a three star rating because she sort of kept repeating and rambling, which I suppose was her intentional style, but it ended up being somewhat repetitive. But, I desperately envy her life so I can't criticize her work too much.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Aesthetic Notes on Nadja
There is much about surrealist aesthetics that I don't understand. Here are some notes on Aesthetics from André Breton's Nadja.
Aesthetics:
"Chirico
acknowledged at the time that he could paint only when surprised (surprised
first of all) by certain arrangements of objects, and that the entire enigma of
revelation consisted for him in the word: surprise" (Breton, 15). Breton
goes on to note that the art that Chirico created certainly was linked with the
object that inspired it, but only in a way that two brothers resemble on
another or as a dream about a person resembles the actual person. Firstly, the
dream part is a part of the surrealist fascination with dreams. But, the
element of surprise seems to be essential to understanding the Surrealist
aesthetic desire as well. I was not familiar with De Chirico until I looked him
up, but after seeing some of his more famous paintings like Love Song,
The Red Tower and The
Disquieting Muses I realized I had at least seen some of his works. They encapsulate
(at least his work during his 'metaphysical' period) what I've always
considered surrealism's enjoyable aspects.
"I
insist on knowing the names, on being interested only in books left ajar, like
doors; I will not go looking for keys" (Breton, 18). This seems an
interesting aesthetic ideal for Breton considering the surrealist paintings. I
guess in some extent the door is left ajar in that a painting or drawing in
that style naturally opens itself to multiple vantage points and
interpretations. But, on the other hand the door seems firmly closed to getting
to the meaning behind the works.
There
is a long passage on Breton's concept of beauty after the dots on page 159
through the final page 160. But the final sentence of the book seems to
articulate Breton's view on beauty well enough. "Beauty will be convulsive
or will not be at all". If something therefore, doesn't cause an unconscious
reaction then it isn't beauty at all. Convulsions aren't usually something that
I incorporate into my ideas of pleasurable experiences, but there are of course
muscle convulsions that are. It's just an ugly word to associate with
beauty.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Notes on the Absurd Creation (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally written October 13, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 16 (B)
(Originally Written March 7, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
History has shown that only religion has aided in the progress of humanity.
"The great evil is not that men do not know God, but they have set up instead of God, that which is not God" (Maude, 235). So it is with art today.
"Christian perception gave another, a new direction to all human feelings, and therefore completely altered both the content and significance of art" (Maude, 237).
"The essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition by every man of his sonship to God and of the consequent union of men with God and with one another" (Maude, 238).
True art has the characteristic of uniting all men, not just a few. Non-Christian art may unite a few people, but in uniting those few they divide them from the many. Patriotic art is a prime example of this. Church art is another example. Good Christian art must transmit a feeling to all men regardless of their demographics.
Only two feelings unite all men:
1. Feeling stemming from the universal sonship of God and universal brotherhood.
2. Feelings of common life accessible to all men.
Only two objects for art can be considered good:
1. That which flows from love of God and the relationship of God to man and man to man.
2. That which flows from the most basic feelings felt by every human being.
The first is religious art; the second is universal art.
Religious art is manifested best in words, but can also be manifested in sculpture and painting. Universal art is best manifested in music, but can be manifested in dance, architecture, words, painting and sculpture as well.
The overburdening of the viewer with details of the producer blocks the transmission of feelings. The simpler, the better. In true art, feelings are expressed without superfluous extras.
The more detailed a story becomes, the more provincial it becomes and thus, the less universal it is.
In music, the melody is accessible to every one, but when extremely complex harmonies are added, the melody is lost and the piece loses universality.
Whether I like a thing or not, if it fails to be religious or universal art, I must consider it bad art. Only by judging first if a work transmits feelings or not and then deciding whether the thing unites or divides people can we decide if the work is real or counterfeit and if it is real, we can then decide if it is good or bad.
Art is spiritual food.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
History has shown that only religion has aided in the progress of humanity.
"The great evil is not that men do not know God, but they have set up instead of God, that which is not God" (Maude, 235). So it is with art today.
"Christian perception gave another, a new direction to all human feelings, and therefore completely altered both the content and significance of art" (Maude, 237).
"The essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition by every man of his sonship to God and of the consequent union of men with God and with one another" (Maude, 238).
True art has the characteristic of uniting all men, not just a few. Non-Christian art may unite a few people, but in uniting those few they divide them from the many. Patriotic art is a prime example of this. Church art is another example. Good Christian art must transmit a feeling to all men regardless of their demographics.
Only two feelings unite all men:
1. Feeling stemming from the universal sonship of God and universal brotherhood.
2. Feelings of common life accessible to all men.
Only two objects for art can be considered good:
1. That which flows from love of God and the relationship of God to man and man to man.
2. That which flows from the most basic feelings felt by every human being.
The first is religious art; the second is universal art.
Religious art is manifested best in words, but can also be manifested in sculpture and painting. Universal art is best manifested in music, but can be manifested in dance, architecture, words, painting and sculpture as well.
The overburdening of the viewer with details of the producer blocks the transmission of feelings. The simpler, the better. In true art, feelings are expressed without superfluous extras.
The more detailed a story becomes, the more provincial it becomes and thus, the less universal it is.
In music, the melody is accessible to every one, but when extremely complex harmonies are added, the melody is lost and the piece loses universality.
Whether I like a thing or not, if it fails to be religious or universal art, I must consider it bad art. Only by judging first if a work transmits feelings or not and then deciding whether the thing unites or divides people can we decide if the work is real or counterfeit and if it is real, we can then decide if it is good or bad.
Art is spiritual food.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 12
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 12
Three things cooperate to cause the production of counterfeit art:
1. The professionalism of the artist for hire
2. Art criticism
3. Schools of art
When art became a profession it was due to the upper classes' obsession with art for their pleasure. In art becoming a profession the most fundamental quality of art was lost, its sincerity.
Art criticism has also led to counterfeit art because criticism is being done by perverted individuals. The critics claim it is their job to explain art, but if an artist produces a true work of art, he transmits his feelings to others. Therefore, what is there left to explain?
An artist's work is not open for interpretation.
The artist would choose to express his feelings with words if he could, but he could not. Therefore, he expressed it with art.
Universal art has a definite and indubitable criterion - religious perception. Because the upper classes lack this they must search for some external criterion for art and thus, critics exist. Universal art needs no interpretation and thus, no critics.
Art schools are also harmful. How can one teach one how to transmit a unique feeling? These schools teach how to transmit feelings of other artists' experience. The teach how to counterfeit.
"Infection is only obtained when an artist finds those infinitely minute degrees of which a work consists, and only to the extent to which he finds them" (Maude, 201). These degrees of minuteness are only found when a man yields to his feelings. They cannot be taught to be found.
Schools may teach what is necessary to produce something resembling art, but not art itself. The teaching at schools stops exactly where art begins.
These three things, the making of art into a profession, art criticism and art schools have made most people unable to understand what is art by forcing them to become accustomed to counterfeits.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 12
Three things cooperate to cause the production of counterfeit art:
1. The professionalism of the artist for hire
2. Art criticism
3. Schools of art
When art became a profession it was due to the upper classes' obsession with art for their pleasure. In art becoming a profession the most fundamental quality of art was lost, its sincerity.
Art criticism has also led to counterfeit art because criticism is being done by perverted individuals. The critics claim it is their job to explain art, but if an artist produces a true work of art, he transmits his feelings to others. Therefore, what is there left to explain?
An artist's work is not open for interpretation.
The artist would choose to express his feelings with words if he could, but he could not. Therefore, he expressed it with art.
Universal art has a definite and indubitable criterion - religious perception. Because the upper classes lack this they must search for some external criterion for art and thus, critics exist. Universal art needs no interpretation and thus, no critics.
Art schools are also harmful. How can one teach one how to transmit a unique feeling? These schools teach how to transmit feelings of other artists' experience. The teach how to counterfeit.
"Infection is only obtained when an artist finds those infinitely minute degrees of which a work consists, and only to the extent to which he finds them" (Maude, 201). These degrees of minuteness are only found when a man yields to his feelings. They cannot be taught to be found.
Schools may teach what is necessary to produce something resembling art, but not art itself. The teaching at schools stops exactly where art begins.
These three things, the making of art into a profession, art criticism and art schools have made most people unable to understand what is art by forcing them to become accustomed to counterfeits.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 16 (A)
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 15
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 15
The way to separate art from counterfeit is to consider its infectiousness. True art infects; counterfeit art does not. If a work does not create a union between the producer and the audience then it is not art. Art, true art, destroys the separation and isolation of one's own personality and unites men under one feeling.
The degree of infectiousness is the measure by which we judge good art. The stronger the infection the better the art is. The degree of infectiousness depends on three things. First, the feeling that is transmitted. Second, the clearness of the transmission. And, third, the sincerity of the artist. The third is the most important to how infectious a piece will be. The absence of any one of these conditions precludes a work from being art. This is how art is judged regardless of its subject matter, regardless of whether the feeling transmitted is good or bad.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 15
The way to separate art from counterfeit is to consider its infectiousness. True art infects; counterfeit art does not. If a work does not create a union between the producer and the audience then it is not art. Art, true art, destroys the separation and isolation of one's own personality and unites men under one feeling.
The degree of infectiousness is the measure by which we judge good art. The stronger the infection the better the art is. The degree of infectiousness depends on three things. First, the feeling that is transmitted. Second, the clearness of the transmission. And, third, the sincerity of the artist. The third is the most important to how infectious a piece will be. The absence of any one of these conditions precludes a work from being art. This is how art is judged regardless of its subject matter, regardless of whether the feeling transmitted is good or bad.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 14
(Originally Written March 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 14
If we admit that art is a man's intentional transmission of his feelings to another we must also admit that what the world of the upper classes calls the whole of art is not art at all, but counterfeit. The difficulty we have in deciphering what is real art from what is counterfeit is that there is so much counterfeit art existing today. Also, the difficulty arises in the skill of the counterfeiters. Their external craftsmanship often is better than true artists.
True art is modest.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 14
If we admit that art is a man's intentional transmission of his feelings to another we must also admit that what the world of the upper classes calls the whole of art is not art at all, but counterfeit. The difficulty we have in deciphering what is real art from what is counterfeit is that there is so much counterfeit art existing today. Also, the difficulty arises in the skill of the counterfeiters. Their external craftsmanship often is better than true artists.
True art is modest.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 13
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 13
The combination of two arts into one (like Opera) is asking to do the impossible. It is asking to have two new feelings expressed independently as one. If there is a combination of arts, either one or both works are counterfeit.
One of the chief conditions of artistic creation is "the complete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived demand" (Maude, 205).
True art exists as such that if one tiny part were altered or replaced or moved then the entire piece would cease to be art.
Wagner's subversion of music to poetry is absurd. One art form cannot serve another. Each must exist independently of one another. Wagner hypnotizes his audience. This hypnosis produces his desired effects upon people. They are not infected as they would have been by true art. If one fails to be hypnotized by this spectacle they sit silently so as not to be criticized for their view. They sit as a sober man does in the midst of the drunk.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 13
The combination of two arts into one (like Opera) is asking to do the impossible. It is asking to have two new feelings expressed independently as one. If there is a combination of arts, either one or both works are counterfeit.
One of the chief conditions of artistic creation is "the complete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived demand" (Maude, 205).
True art exists as such that if one tiny part were altered or replaced or moved then the entire piece would cease to be art.
Wagner's subversion of music to poetry is absurd. One art form cannot serve another. Each must exist independently of one another. Wagner hypnotizes his audience. This hypnosis produces his desired effects upon people. They are not infected as they would have been by true art. If one fails to be hypnotized by this spectacle they sit silently so as not to be criticized for their view. They sit as a sober man does in the midst of the drunk.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 11
(Originally Written March 2, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 11
Universal art only arises when some man, having experienced a strong emotion feels the necessity to transmit it to others. The art-on-demand world of the upper classes has stretched even bad artists because even bad art demands spontaneity. Therefore, to meet demands they have taken up the task of producing imitations of art. They have developed four methods of counterfeits:
1. Borrowing
2. Imitation
3. Striking
4. Interesting
By borrowing, counterfeiters take recognized poetic elements and incorporate them in a piece, giving people an impression of art. This is counterfeit because the producer is not transmitting any feelings of their own, but regurgitating another's feelings. Imitation is a method that they use to transmit feeling by imitating real life. They describe it so technically we feel it to be real. The method of striking involves bringing tother two contrasts for dramatic effect. The fourth method is interesting. The producer introduces an interesting element to the audience and the audience mistakes artistic impression for interest. Often a work is called a good piece of art if it is either poetic, or realistic or striking or interesting. But, these things have nothing to do with art at all.
Poetic means borrowed. To say a thing is good art because it is poetic is akin to saying a coin is good because it resembles money.
To judge a piece of art's goodness based on its realness is akin to judging the nutritive value by its external appearance.
In using imitation there is no transmission of feelings, only an action on the nerves.
If work is interesting then we either receive new information or that the work is not fully intelligible and we must work to understand it. Interestingness of pieces not only has nothing to do with artistry, but actually hinders artistic production.
While any piece of art may be a combination of petic, realistic, striking and interesting, these things do not replace the essence of art - feeling experienced by the artist.
In order to produce a real work of art a man must:
1. Stand at the highest level of conception of life at the time
2. Experience feeling
3. Have the desire and capacity to transmit feeling
4. Have a talent in a form of art (talent is ability)
Counterfeit productions of art are made from recipes. Art, true art, has no recipe or formula.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 11
Universal art only arises when some man, having experienced a strong emotion feels the necessity to transmit it to others. The art-on-demand world of the upper classes has stretched even bad artists because even bad art demands spontaneity. Therefore, to meet demands they have taken up the task of producing imitations of art. They have developed four methods of counterfeits:
1. Borrowing
2. Imitation
3. Striking
4. Interesting
By borrowing, counterfeiters take recognized poetic elements and incorporate them in a piece, giving people an impression of art. This is counterfeit because the producer is not transmitting any feelings of their own, but regurgitating another's feelings. Imitation is a method that they use to transmit feeling by imitating real life. They describe it so technically we feel it to be real. The method of striking involves bringing tother two contrasts for dramatic effect. The fourth method is interesting. The producer introduces an interesting element to the audience and the audience mistakes artistic impression for interest. Often a work is called a good piece of art if it is either poetic, or realistic or striking or interesting. But, these things have nothing to do with art at all.
Poetic means borrowed. To say a thing is good art because it is poetic is akin to saying a coin is good because it resembles money.
To judge a piece of art's goodness based on its realness is akin to judging the nutritive value by its external appearance.
In using imitation there is no transmission of feelings, only an action on the nerves.
If work is interesting then we either receive new information or that the work is not fully intelligible and we must work to understand it. Interestingness of pieces not only has nothing to do with artistry, but actually hinders artistic production.
While any piece of art may be a combination of petic, realistic, striking and interesting, these things do not replace the essence of art - feeling experienced by the artist.
In order to produce a real work of art a man must:
1. Stand at the highest level of conception of life at the time
2. Experience feeling
3. Have the desire and capacity to transmit feeling
4. Have a talent in a form of art (talent is ability)
Counterfeit productions of art are made from recipes. Art, true art, has no recipe or formula.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 10
(Originally Written Mar. 2, 2008 in the Journal)
When a person creates art for all mankind then he strives to make it intelligible to all men, but when one is hired by a single person he strives only to make it intelligible to that man. The latter is enormously easier and by doing so makes the piece either obscure or utterly incomprehensible to outsiders; and thus, is not art. This practice has become so rampant that cloudiness, obscurity and indefiniteness of expression have actually become esteemend.
Baudelaire banished eloquence, passion and truth from poetry. Mallarmé said that the charm of poetry is that one must guess its meaning.
The artist of this age relies on the teachings of Wagner and Nietzsche claiming they need not make their work comprehensible to the vulgar.
Baudelaire transmits feelings that are evil and base. He purposefully shrouds them in obscurity. Even if one works to comprehend the meaning, one is not rewarded, but perverted by the work. Verlaine, when he decides to actually make his work comprehensible produces works that are bade in both form and content. Both Baudelaire and Verlaine lacked sincerity and simplicity but possessed, abundantly so, artificiality, forced originality and self-assurance. How these two became leading artists shows how art had ceased to be important in their society and how art sunk to mere amusement.
The subject matter of this 'high art' has become severely limited so they invent new, poor forms to mold their subject matter.
Mallarmé and Maeterlinck produced poetry with absolutely no meaning and it is probably this utter meaninglessness that led them to being published. "To avoid the reproach of having selected the worst verses, I have copied out of each volume whatever poem happened to stand on page twenty-eight" (Maude, 169). That's funny!!
Millions and millions of working hours have been spent on the production of these unintelligible works of high art in turning them into books and plays, etc.
Painting far surpasses writing in its obscurity, especially of the Symbolists, Impressionists, and Neo-Impressionists. Drama has likewise become obscure and meaningless. In the music today, all a aman can do in transmitting his feelings can transmit the weariness of his incomprehensible song. Novels are too absolutely unintelligible in both form and substance.
Some problems with judging art in Tolstoy's way: If I have a right to say that the masses do not understand my art it is because they are underdeveloped then those who fancy the new art have the right to say I do not understand their art because I am underdeveloped. If I have the right to say that me and my cronies can say that the new art is bad because it says nothing then the masses who do not understand my art (and are more mass then my crowd) can call my art bad because it says nothing to them.
Tolstoy states that as a man of the early part of the century does not have the authority or right to say that the new art is bad, but only that it is incomprehensible. The consolation that Tolstoy then has is that what he considers to be art is incomprehensible to far fewer than the new art is. The only conclusion that then can be made is that as art becomes more and more exclusive it becomes more and more incomprehensible to an ever increasing number of people
Art has been subjected to this situation that eventually only the producer will understand his production gand then he will say I understand my art and all who don't are worse because of their incomprehension...
Any assertion that states art can be good and yet incomprehensible to large swathes of the masses is completely unjust, "Perverted art may not please the majority of men, but good art always pleases everyone" (Maude, 176).
Some men claim that art that is difficult to understand is good art and can be understood by all by viewing that same incomprehensible art over and over again. In reality though this does not educate anyone. It only habituates them to it. One can often habituate themselves to many bad things: bad food, alcohol, tobacco and opium. The same is true with art; one can habituate themselves to bad art.
The difference between art and speech is that there are no language barriers. I do not need to know a specific language to understand why a piece is a great piece of artwork. "Great works of art are only great because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone" (Maude, 177).
If something does not move many people it is not because these people lack understanding but that thing is either bad art, or not art at all.
Art is differentiated from all other mental activities in that there is no prerequisite knowledge necessary. Art infects the observer, whatever his place of development is.
Now, good art may be incomprehensible to some people but that is because those individuals have been perverted and are destitute of all religion. (Religion is man's relation to God.)
When a person creates art for all mankind then he strives to make it intelligible to all men, but when one is hired by a single person he strives only to make it intelligible to that man. The latter is enormously easier and by doing so makes the piece either obscure or utterly incomprehensible to outsiders; and thus, is not art. This practice has become so rampant that cloudiness, obscurity and indefiniteness of expression have actually become esteemend.
Baudelaire banished eloquence, passion and truth from poetry. Mallarmé said that the charm of poetry is that one must guess its meaning.
The artist of this age relies on the teachings of Wagner and Nietzsche claiming they need not make their work comprehensible to the vulgar.
Baudelaire transmits feelings that are evil and base. He purposefully shrouds them in obscurity. Even if one works to comprehend the meaning, one is not rewarded, but perverted by the work. Verlaine, when he decides to actually make his work comprehensible produces works that are bade in both form and content. Both Baudelaire and Verlaine lacked sincerity and simplicity but possessed, abundantly so, artificiality, forced originality and self-assurance. How these two became leading artists shows how art had ceased to be important in their society and how art sunk to mere amusement.
The subject matter of this 'high art' has become severely limited so they invent new, poor forms to mold their subject matter.
Mallarmé and Maeterlinck produced poetry with absolutely no meaning and it is probably this utter meaninglessness that led them to being published. "To avoid the reproach of having selected the worst verses, I have copied out of each volume whatever poem happened to stand on page twenty-eight" (Maude, 169). That's funny!!
Millions and millions of working hours have been spent on the production of these unintelligible works of high art in turning them into books and plays, etc.
Painting far surpasses writing in its obscurity, especially of the Symbolists, Impressionists, and Neo-Impressionists. Drama has likewise become obscure and meaningless. In the music today, all a aman can do in transmitting his feelings can transmit the weariness of his incomprehensible song. Novels are too absolutely unintelligible in both form and substance.
Some problems with judging art in Tolstoy's way: If I have a right to say that the masses do not understand my art it is because they are underdeveloped then those who fancy the new art have the right to say I do not understand their art because I am underdeveloped. If I have the right to say that me and my cronies can say that the new art is bad because it says nothing then the masses who do not understand my art (and are more mass then my crowd) can call my art bad because it says nothing to them.
Tolstoy states that as a man of the early part of the century does not have the authority or right to say that the new art is bad, but only that it is incomprehensible. The consolation that Tolstoy then has is that what he considers to be art is incomprehensible to far fewer than the new art is. The only conclusion that then can be made is that as art becomes more and more exclusive it becomes more and more incomprehensible to an ever increasing number of people
Art has been subjected to this situation that eventually only the producer will understand his production gand then he will say I understand my art and all who don't are worse because of their incomprehension...
Any assertion that states art can be good and yet incomprehensible to large swathes of the masses is completely unjust, "Perverted art may not please the majority of men, but good art always pleases everyone" (Maude, 176).
Some men claim that art that is difficult to understand is good art and can be understood by all by viewing that same incomprehensible art over and over again. In reality though this does not educate anyone. It only habituates them to it. One can often habituate themselves to many bad things: bad food, alcohol, tobacco and opium. The same is true with art; one can habituate themselves to bad art.
The difference between art and speech is that there are no language barriers. I do not need to know a specific language to understand why a piece is a great piece of artwork. "Great works of art are only great because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone" (Maude, 177).
If something does not move many people it is not because these people lack understanding but that thing is either bad art, or not art at all.
Art is differentiated from all other mental activities in that there is no prerequisite knowledge necessary. Art infects the observer, whatever his place of development is.
Now, good art may be incomprehensible to some people but that is because those individuals have been perverted and are destitute of all religion. (Religion is man's relation to God.)
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 9
(Originally Written Mar. 1, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 9
The perversion of art has weakened art and nearly destroyed it. Art has been deprived of its infinite, varied and profound religious subject matter by the faithless upper class.
Since art is viewed by only a small group it has lost its beauty of form and become obscure. Art has lost its sincerity and has become artificial.
Art product is only art when it transmits a new feeling, not a regurgitated one.
There is nothing older and more used than mere enjoyment. There is nothing newer or more fresh then the religious feelings of the day.
Man's enjoyment has natural limitations, but his religious progression is limitless.
New feelings can only be formed by new religious convictions.
The lack of belief in the upper classes has deprived them of any subject matter for art.
The rich and the powerful and thusly idle, experience very little and all can be summed up to three feelings: pride, sexual desire and the weariness of life. The lack of belief in the upper classes has sunk their transmissions down to the feelings of pride, discontent with life and the lowest of sexual lust.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 9
The perversion of art has weakened art and nearly destroyed it. Art has been deprived of its infinite, varied and profound religious subject matter by the faithless upper class.
Since art is viewed by only a small group it has lost its beauty of form and become obscure. Art has lost its sincerity and has become artificial.
Art product is only art when it transmits a new feeling, not a regurgitated one.
There is nothing older and more used than mere enjoyment. There is nothing newer or more fresh then the religious feelings of the day.
Man's enjoyment has natural limitations, but his religious progression is limitless.
New feelings can only be formed by new religious convictions.
The lack of belief in the upper classes has deprived them of any subject matter for art.
The rich and the powerful and thusly idle, experience very little and all can be summed up to three feelings: pride, sexual desire and the weariness of life. The lack of belief in the upper classes has sunk their transmissions down to the feelings of pride, discontent with life and the lowest of sexual lust.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 8
(Originally Written March 1, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 8
The fine art of Europe is only possible through the slave labor of the lower classes. Only by their toil can the rich and powerful continue to enjoy their elite, artless art.
Even if we were to admit the un-admittable to the high art it can be shown that this fashionable art is not the whole of art in that the common man would find this art completely unintelligible. The fine art is unintelligible to the masses because it expresses feelings of men who have never known the life of toil that is common to nearly all men. The feelings that are evoked in the masses by this art, if they evoke feeling at all, are often contrary to the artist's feelings. Such feelings as honor, patriotism and amorousness will only evoke bewilderment, contempt or indignation in the masses. What the working man would understand in the fine art would not elevate his soul, only pervert it.
If art is a spiritual blessing for all men then it ought to be accessible and intelligible to all men. But, if art is not these things then either art is not as important as we say or the art today is not true art.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 8
The fine art of Europe is only possible through the slave labor of the lower classes. Only by their toil can the rich and powerful continue to enjoy their elite, artless art.
Even if we were to admit the un-admittable to the high art it can be shown that this fashionable art is not the whole of art in that the common man would find this art completely unintelligible. The fine art is unintelligible to the masses because it expresses feelings of men who have never known the life of toil that is common to nearly all men. The feelings that are evoked in the masses by this art, if they evoke feeling at all, are often contrary to the artist's feelings. Such feelings as honor, patriotism and amorousness will only evoke bewilderment, contempt or indignation in the masses. What the working man would understand in the fine art would not elevate his soul, only pervert it.
If art is a spiritual blessing for all men then it ought to be accessible and intelligible to all men. But, if art is not these things then either art is not as important as we say or the art today is not true art.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 7 (B)
(Originally Written March 1, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7
Pro captu lectoris habant sua fata libelli - The fate of books depends on the head of the reader.
Goodness, beauty and truth are treated as metaphysical and fundamental, but this is not the case.
However we understand goodness "our life is nothing but a striving towards the good, that is, towards God" (Maude, 141). Goodness is the fundamental metaphysical perception which forms the essence of our consciousness. Goodness cannot be defined; but it defines everything else.
Beauty is merely that which pleases us. It does not belong to the same fundamental level as goodness. Beauty often lies contrary to goodness because goodness often results in victory over the passions, while beauty has its roots in the passions.
The terms, 'moral beauty' and 'spiritual beauty' are word games that simply are another way of saying goodness.
Truth is merely a correspondence of an expression with reality. It is not fundamental like goodness is.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7
Pro captu lectoris habant sua fata libelli - The fate of books depends on the head of the reader.
Goodness, beauty and truth are treated as metaphysical and fundamental, but this is not the case.
However we understand goodness "our life is nothing but a striving towards the good, that is, towards God" (Maude, 141). Goodness is the fundamental metaphysical perception which forms the essence of our consciousness. Goodness cannot be defined; but it defines everything else.
Beauty is merely that which pleases us. It does not belong to the same fundamental level as goodness. Beauty often lies contrary to goodness because goodness often results in victory over the passions, while beauty has its roots in the passions.
The terms, 'moral beauty' and 'spiritual beauty' are word games that simply are another way of saying goodness.
Truth is merely a correspondence of an expression with reality. It is not fundamental like goodness is.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 7 (A)
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7
From the doubt of Church-Christianity beauty became the standard of good and bad art.
Plato's reasoning about goodness and beauty is confused and full of contradictions. The Europeans sought to set this flawed theory as law in their aesthetics. They twisted the Greek teachings to suit their own mindsets.
They held that the science of aesthetics was founded by the Greeks and disappeared for 1500 years only to be revived in Germany by Baumgarten. But, in fact, it did not disappear because it had never existed at all.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7
From the doubt of Church-Christianity beauty became the standard of good and bad art.
Plato's reasoning about goodness and beauty is confused and full of contradictions. The Europeans sought to set this flawed theory as law in their aesthetics. They twisted the Greek teachings to suit their own mindsets.
They held that the science of aesthetics was founded by the Greeks and disappeared for 1500 years only to be revived in Germany by Baumgarten. But, in fact, it did not disappear because it had never existed at all.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 6
Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 5
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 4
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (B)
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)