The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter III: Three Doctors of the Church
There are four Doctors of the Western Church: St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and Pope Gregory the Great. The first three were contemporaries while Pope Gregory belonged to a later date.
Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome flourished during the brief interval between the Catholic domination of the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasion of the West. These three men shaped the mold into which the Church was built for the Middle Ages more than anybody. "Speaking broadly, Saint
Ambrose determined the ecclesiastical conception of the relation of Church and State; Saint
Jerome gave the Western Church its Latin Bible and a great part of the impetus to monasticism;
while Saint Augustine fixed the theology of the Church until the Reformation, and, later, a great
part of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin" (Russell, 335).
Ambrose rose to power inside the Church by becoming somewhat of a surprise victor in the election to bishop at Milan, then the capital of the West. He acted as equal, sometimes superior to the Emperor, setting a precedent.
Ambrose wrote a letter to the young Emperor Valentinian II in A.D. 384 denouncing the idea of returning a pagan statue to the Roman Senate building. In the letter he showed that the religious considerations supersede the temporal ones.
Again Ambrose battled with the State this time refusing to give one of the churches of Milan to the Arians for use. Backed by the people, Ambrose emerged victorious. "Ambrose had demonstrated that there were matters in which the State must yield to the Church, and had thereby established a new principle which retains its importance to the present day" (Russell, 339).
Ambrose famously battled with Theodosius and won out. Again showing the power of the Emperor to be subservient to the power of the Church.
Jerome is most famous for producing the Latin Vulgate which though eventually accepted as authoritative had to initially fight against reluctance because of the work of Rabbis on the text.
Jerome was born in Stridon, near Aquileia and lived in Rome, lived as a hermit in the Syrian wilderness, traveled to Constantinople and returned to Rome where he began to work on his translation of the Bible.
Jerome found himself in quarrels often and left Rome in 386 to live in Bethlehem until his death in 420. Despite his exile away from Rome, he mourned the dying of the Roman world at the hands of the barbarians.
Augustine was born in 354 to a Christian mother and pagan father in Africa.
We know more about Augustine's early life than most others because of his Confessions. The book has had famous imitators, especially Rousseau and Tolstoy.
"Saint Augustine is in some ways similar to Tolstoy, to whom, however, he is superior in intellect. He was a passionate man, in youth very far from a pattern of virtue, but driven by an inner impulse to search for truth and righteousness. Like Tolstoy, he was obsessed, in his later years, by a sense of sin, which made his life stern and his philosophy inhuman. He combated heresies vigorously, but some of his own views, when repeated by Jansenius in the seventeenth century, were pronounced heretical. Until the Protestants took up his opinions, however, the Catholic Church had never impugned their
orthodoxy" (Russell, 345).
Augustine's obsession with sin seems morbid in modern readings, but was in line with what was seen as holiness in his age. Besides that he held that righteousness, the greatest of goods, was achieved through tribulation now that sin was in the world.
"It thus came about that Christian theology had two parts, one concerned with the Church, and one with the individual soul. In later times, the first of these was most emphasized by Catholics, and the second by Protestants, but in Saint Augustine both exist equally, without his having any sense of
disharmony. Those who are saved are those whom God has predestined to salvation; this is a
direct relation of the soul to God. But no one will be saved unless he has been baptized, and
thereby become a member of the Church; this makes the Church an intermediary between the soul
and God" (Russell, 346).
Augustine became a teacher of Rhetoric in Carthage then moved to Rome. With his move he became less convinced of the Manichean faith he had been originally attracted to. He became somewhat infatuated with the Skepticism of the Academy before meeting Ambrose in his move to Milan. It was at Milan with the confluence of his mother, a devout Catholic, Ambrose, the discovery of St. Paul and seeing the not-quite-there totality in Platonism that Augustine finally converts.
Showing posts with label Tolstoy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tolstoy. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Monday, October 31, 2016
Assessment of The Kreutzer Sonata - Tolstoy
I finished The Kreutzer Sonata a few days ago and really enjoyed the book. It's a small, cheap edition of three of Tolstoy's stories: How Much Land Does a Man Need?, The Death of Ivan Ilych, & The Kreutzer Sonata. Firstly, I had never read any of these short stories and enjoyed them quite a bit. I especially liked How Much Land Does a Man Need? While, the ending might have been a bit predictable, the wording and the meaning is quite excellent. It's a very short tale that slams the greediness inherent to human beings and serves as a warning against the pains that greediness will bring.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
Monday, February 9, 2015
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
In going through the long and tedious notes about aesthetics and What is Art by Tolstoy that I took nearly seven years ago... (Incredibly seven years ago was 2008???) I came across an interesting theory coming from Christian Felix Weiße. [on a side note I'm pretty pumped that I got the ß symbol on first guess on this Mac Keyboard]. Anyway, Christian Felix Wieße was a German writer and philosopher of education. He had this theory that Art comes into being through the introduction of spiritual reality into external, dead, indifferent matter. All I could think of was the Living Plastic from Doctor Who.
So I thought a good short story idea might be centered around this theory.
Think an artist suffering from Weltschmerz bringing to life work by introducing a spiritual reality into "external, dead, indifferent matter", a gestalt intelligence and mayhem.
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
So I thought a good short story idea might be centered around this theory.
Think an artist suffering from Weltschmerz bringing to life work by introducing a spiritual reality into "external, dead, indifferent matter", a gestalt intelligence and mayhem.
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
Friday, February 6, 2015
A funny anecdote from Tolstoy on the state of the world
In digging up the old journals and writings of the last 10-13 years I've found so far that I was once smarter than I am now - or at least I appeared so. I've also found things that struck me as funny back then, don't strike me as funny now or the opposite. But, there are a few things that were funny to me then and funny to me now. This is one of them. In rewriting the notes on Tolstoy I found a funny little quip about how Tolstoy was bemoaning the state of affairs and the current lack of morality in the present age.
"Half a century ago no explanation would have been neeeded of the words 'important', 'good' and 'moral, but in our time nine out of ten educated people, at these words, will ask with a triumphant air: 'What is important, good or moral?' assuming that these words express something conditional and not admitting of definition, and therefore I must answer this anticipated objection" (Maude, 55).
I can't think how many times I've heard somebody say on the news that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of the decaying morals of today's youth. Tolstoy thought the same thing - in 1895. I picture him sitting on his porch, yelling at the neighborhood children to get off his lawn and bemoaning the lack of discipline in today's society. (Not to say he isn't right, just that it's funny every generation thinks the upcoming one is so much morally reprehensible).
"Half a century ago no explanation would have been neeeded of the words 'important', 'good' and 'moral, but in our time nine out of ten educated people, at these words, will ask with a triumphant air: 'What is important, good or moral?' assuming that these words express something conditional and not admitting of definition, and therefore I must answer this anticipated objection" (Maude, 55).
I can't think how many times I've heard somebody say on the news that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of the decaying morals of today's youth. Tolstoy thought the same thing - in 1895. I picture him sitting on his porch, yelling at the neighborhood children to get off his lawn and bemoaning the lack of discipline in today's society. (Not to say he isn't right, just that it's funny every generation thinks the upcoming one is so much morally reprehensible).
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A quick thought on Tolstoy
(Originally written September 15, 2011 in The Journal)
I just finished up my notes on Tolstoy and as I was reading it and typing it a thought occurred to me on the similarity between Tolstoy and Marx. How close are Tolstoy's ideals of art to the Marxist idea of proletariat struggle? Did Marx have an overt influence on Tolstoy?
I just finished up my notes on Tolstoy and as I was reading it and typing it a thought occurred to me on the similarity between Tolstoy and Marx. How close are Tolstoy's ideals of art to the Marxist idea of proletariat struggle? Did Marx have an overt influence on Tolstoy?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)