(Originally Written Feb. 23, 2008 in the Journal)
Art is a mental activity.
Art must contribute what is good to man, not what is evil.
"The importance, the value, of art consists in widening man's outlook, in increasing the spiritual wealth that is humanity's capital" (Maude, 54).
Art must always reveal something new, but something newly revealed is not necessarily art.
In order for a new idea to be art it must:
1. Be of importance to mankind
2. Be expressed clearly so that people may understand it
3. Be brought about by something inside the creator not an external inducement
A piece is only art if it meets all three conditions (content, form, sincerity).
A piece that barely meets the standards of all three categories will be considered art, but a piece that meets two to the highest degree but is lacking the third will not be art.
To show the lowest threshold of these conditions, Tolstoy claims that he will show the highest and that the opposite of the highest is the lowest.
As for content, Tolstoy claims the highest, most important and necessary to man is that which is good or moral. Thus, the lowest will be what is bad and immoral.
Tolstoy has an interesting definition of good, moral, evil and immoral on page 55:
"That which unites people not by violence but by love: that which serves to disclose the joy of the union of men with another, is 'important', 'good' or 'moral'. 'Evil' and 'immoral' is that which divides them, that leads men to the suffering produced by disunion. 'Important' is that which causes people to understand and to love what they previously did not understand or love'"(Maude, 55).
The highest degree of form is what is intelligible to all men. It is clear, concise and definite. The opposite then is confused, obscure, indefinite and formless.
The highest degree of sincerity is showing reality, not of the existence of the world, but how the soul of the artist exists in relation to the world. The lowest then is a false representation of the artist's soul.
All works of art lie in between the two limits.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, On Art (1895-97) A
(Originally Written Feb. 22, 2008 in the Journal).
Part VI On Art (1895-97)
Two major things to do when considering a theory of art:
1. Separate art from non-art
2. Separate what is good and important from what is insignificant and harmful.
One school of thought says in order for art to be arty it must have for its subject something "important, necessary to man, good, moral and instructive" (Maude, 48).
In this theory, religious, social, moral and political truths are veiled in a seemingly artistic clothing are called art.
The aesthetic or "art for art's sake" theory states that art exists when its form is something beautiful.
The aesthetic theory claims an artist must be skilled technically and create something pleasant or beautiful.
The realistic theory of art states that something must be a truthful, exact presentation of reality.
In the realistic theory, an artist is bound to only recreate what he/she perceives.
Each of these three theories fails to divide art from commercial, insignificant, or harmful productions and thus fails as a theory of art.
The problem with the first two theories is that any person with some skill can churn out a piece of ready-made work, but that work can be insignificant or harmful.
If the third theory were true, all would be artists who reproduced anything that interested them.
Each of these theories fails because art can be produced incessantly in every craft of life. These theories are too broad.
Art must be distinguished from teaching and learning. To create art it must be created anew, not learned and repeated.
"Artistic creation is such mental activity as brings dimly perceived feelings (or thoughts) to such a degree of clearness that these feelings (or thoughts) are transmitted to other people" (Maude, 51).
Process of creation:
1. Man dimly perceives something new to him which he has not heard from anyone else.
2. Man tells this to others and is surprised to find they have not also perceived this.
3. Man is perplexed and tries to communicate his perception in various ways to others.
4. Man doubts his perception.
5. Man devotes all his energy to explaining his perception so as to eliminate the doubt.
"A work of art is then finished when it has been brought to such clearness that it communicates itself to others and evokes in them the same feeling that the artist experienced when creating it (Maude, 53).
Part VI On Art (1895-97)
Two major things to do when considering a theory of art:
1. Separate art from non-art
2. Separate what is good and important from what is insignificant and harmful.
One school of thought says in order for art to be arty it must have for its subject something "important, necessary to man, good, moral and instructive" (Maude, 48).
In this theory, religious, social, moral and political truths are veiled in a seemingly artistic clothing are called art.
The aesthetic or "art for art's sake" theory states that art exists when its form is something beautiful.
The aesthetic theory claims an artist must be skilled technically and create something pleasant or beautiful.
The realistic theory of art states that something must be a truthful, exact presentation of reality.
In the realistic theory, an artist is bound to only recreate what he/she perceives.
Each of these three theories fails to divide art from commercial, insignificant, or harmful productions and thus fails as a theory of art.
The problem with the first two theories is that any person with some skill can churn out a piece of ready-made work, but that work can be insignificant or harmful.
If the third theory were true, all would be artists who reproduced anything that interested them.
Each of these theories fails because art can be produced incessantly in every craft of life. These theories are too broad.
Art must be distinguished from teaching and learning. To create art it must be created anew, not learned and repeated.
"Artistic creation is such mental activity as brings dimly perceived feelings (or thoughts) to such a degree of clearness that these feelings (or thoughts) are transmitted to other people" (Maude, 51).
Process of creation:
1. Man dimly perceives something new to him which he has not heard from anyone else.
2. Man tells this to others and is surprised to find they have not also perceived this.
3. Man is perplexed and tries to communicate his perception in various ways to others.
4. Man doubts his perception.
5. Man devotes all his energy to explaining his perception so as to eliminate the doubt.
"A work of art is then finished when it has been brought to such clearness that it communicates itself to others and evokes in them the same feeling that the artist experienced when creating it (Maude, 53).
Monday, February 18, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, Introduction to the works of Guy de Maupassant (1894)
(Originally Written Feb. 18, 2008 in the Journal)
Part V: Introduction to the works of Guy de Maupassant
In reading the first story La Masion Tellier Tolstoy recognized the author had talent in spite of the indecency and insignificance of the subject.
Talent consists in "the capacity to direct intense concentrated attention, according to the author's tastes, on this or that subject, in consequence of which the man endowed with this capacity sees in the things to which he directs his attention some new aspect which others have overlooked" (Maude, 21).
Thus, talent of a writer, is to see that which others have seen, but overlooked.
Maupassant possessed talent but lacked the chief of the three conditions (aside from talent) to produce a true work of art.
Three Conditions:
1. A Moral relation of the author to his subject.
2. Clearness of expression or beauty of form (the two are identical)
3. Sincerity: a sincere love or hatred of what the artist depicts.
Maupassant possessed the latter two, but wholly lacked the chief and first condition.
Maupassant lacked a moral relation to his subject because he lacked a knowledge of the difference between good and evil. He loved and described what he ought not to love or describe.
Upon reading Maupassant's novel Une Vie, Tolstoy changed his opinion of Maupassant.
A thought from me: An artist then can create works that resemble art but are not true art and then later create true art later. Once an artist, always an artist does not apply.
Bel Ami, another Maupassant novel is a 'very dirty book' but at its base has a very serious idea and sentiment.
But in later novels Maupassant's moral connection to the subjects become confused. Thus, the reader cannot know what the author intends.
Maupassant falls prey to his own success and delivers work based on what the public and critics and publishers want. Though his mastery of form may increase to be even better than before, he loses his moral connection and the work ceases to be art.
He only loves what pleases him and hates what displeases him. There is no acknowledgment of good and evil.
Maupassant becomes entwined with fashionable stories and becomes a hack. He loses his basis of moral demands and feeds us ridiculous lines.
It is absurd in French novels that husbands are always portrayed as deceived and ridiculous, but the lovers of the husband's wives then becomes husbands themselves but do not become deceived and ridiculous, but heroic. It is absurd how all women are portrayed as depraved, but mothers are shown to be saintly.
"When suffering is recognized and understood, it is redeemed" (Maude, 31).
In Une Vie, Maupassant asks, 'Why do the good suffer?' In Bel Ami he asks, 'Why do wealth and fame go the unworthy?' In the next book, Mont-Oriol these questions disappear. Maupassant only describes sensuality because he likes the titillation.
Maupassant fell to the popular theory that pervades society that: "for a work of art is not only unnecessary to have a clear conception of what is right and wrong, but on the contrary an artist should completely ignore all moral questions there being a certain merit in doing so" (Maude, 33).
An artist once told Tolstoy with condescension that it was not the place of the artist to know about good and evil, but only to represent life.
"Maupassant wrote his novels, naively imagining that what was considered beautiful in his circle was that beauty which art should serve" (Maude, 34).
The aim of a novel is the description of a whole human life, or many human lives. A writer therefore must possess a clear and firm conception of good and evil in life.
Unlike untalented writers who can easily write their opinions and have a consistent book, Maupassant had talent. Thus, he could see truth, good and evil, and involuntarily saw the evil in that which he wished to consider good. Thus his novels after Une Vie became inconsistent and confused. By doing this, shifting from portraying evil as good and good as veil to good as good and evil as evil he destroyed the framework of his novels.
The cement which binds a novel together is not the continuity of plot or characters, but the continuity of the author's moral center or convictions.
When we read a book we always ask, "what sort of man is the author? Whatever the artist depicts - saints, robbers, kings or lackeys - we seek and see only the artist's own soul" (Maude, 38).
A man that does not have a clear, definite and just view of the universe can write much and admirably, but cannot produce a work of art.
When Maupassant wrote from a clear and just view of the universe he produced art. When he wrote simply to produce something beautiful, he produced work, not art.
Had Maupassant only wrote novels he would be a tragic example of a waste of talent. But, he wrote short stories, not for the purpose of creating something beautiful but writing on what touched or revolted his moral feeling.
Talent ought to lead him forward on the path of moral development.
"An artist is an artist because he sees things not as he wishes to see them but as they really are" (Maude, 40).
Talent, when unaltered by personal taste makes the observer love what should be loved and hate what ought to be hated.
Maupassant, in his short stories to extol sex-love, but the more he touted it, the more he cursed it for its misfortunes and suffering that lay with sex-love.
The tragedy of Maupassant's life is that his talent, which naturally tends toward good, was freeing him from his wicked circle of influence, only he had not the final strength to break to freedom and died in chains to his chosen master
Part V: Introduction to the works of Guy de Maupassant
In reading the first story La Masion Tellier Tolstoy recognized the author had talent in spite of the indecency and insignificance of the subject.
Talent consists in "the capacity to direct intense concentrated attention, according to the author's tastes, on this or that subject, in consequence of which the man endowed with this capacity sees in the things to which he directs his attention some new aspect which others have overlooked" (Maude, 21).
Thus, talent of a writer, is to see that which others have seen, but overlooked.
Maupassant possessed talent but lacked the chief of the three conditions (aside from talent) to produce a true work of art.
Three Conditions:
1. A Moral relation of the author to his subject.
2. Clearness of expression or beauty of form (the two are identical)
3. Sincerity: a sincere love or hatred of what the artist depicts.
Maupassant possessed the latter two, but wholly lacked the chief and first condition.
Maupassant lacked a moral relation to his subject because he lacked a knowledge of the difference between good and evil. He loved and described what he ought not to love or describe.
Upon reading Maupassant's novel Une Vie, Tolstoy changed his opinion of Maupassant.
A thought from me: An artist then can create works that resemble art but are not true art and then later create true art later. Once an artist, always an artist does not apply.
Bel Ami, another Maupassant novel is a 'very dirty book' but at its base has a very serious idea and sentiment.
But in later novels Maupassant's moral connection to the subjects become confused. Thus, the reader cannot know what the author intends.
Maupassant falls prey to his own success and delivers work based on what the public and critics and publishers want. Though his mastery of form may increase to be even better than before, he loses his moral connection and the work ceases to be art.
He only loves what pleases him and hates what displeases him. There is no acknowledgment of good and evil.
Maupassant becomes entwined with fashionable stories and becomes a hack. He loses his basis of moral demands and feeds us ridiculous lines.
It is absurd in French novels that husbands are always portrayed as deceived and ridiculous, but the lovers of the husband's wives then becomes husbands themselves but do not become deceived and ridiculous, but heroic. It is absurd how all women are portrayed as depraved, but mothers are shown to be saintly.
"When suffering is recognized and understood, it is redeemed" (Maude, 31).
In Une Vie, Maupassant asks, 'Why do the good suffer?' In Bel Ami he asks, 'Why do wealth and fame go the unworthy?' In the next book, Mont-Oriol these questions disappear. Maupassant only describes sensuality because he likes the titillation.
Maupassant fell to the popular theory that pervades society that: "for a work of art is not only unnecessary to have a clear conception of what is right and wrong, but on the contrary an artist should completely ignore all moral questions there being a certain merit in doing so" (Maude, 33).
An artist once told Tolstoy with condescension that it was not the place of the artist to know about good and evil, but only to represent life.
"Maupassant wrote his novels, naively imagining that what was considered beautiful in his circle was that beauty which art should serve" (Maude, 34).
The aim of a novel is the description of a whole human life, or many human lives. A writer therefore must possess a clear and firm conception of good and evil in life.
Unlike untalented writers who can easily write their opinions and have a consistent book, Maupassant had talent. Thus, he could see truth, good and evil, and involuntarily saw the evil in that which he wished to consider good. Thus his novels after Une Vie became inconsistent and confused. By doing this, shifting from portraying evil as good and good as veil to good as good and evil as evil he destroyed the framework of his novels.
The cement which binds a novel together is not the continuity of plot or characters, but the continuity of the author's moral center or convictions.
When we read a book we always ask, "what sort of man is the author? Whatever the artist depicts - saints, robbers, kings or lackeys - we seek and see only the artist's own soul" (Maude, 38).
A man that does not have a clear, definite and just view of the universe can write much and admirably, but cannot produce a work of art.
When Maupassant wrote from a clear and just view of the universe he produced art. When he wrote simply to produce something beautiful, he produced work, not art.
Had Maupassant only wrote novels he would be a tragic example of a waste of talent. But, he wrote short stories, not for the purpose of creating something beautiful but writing on what touched or revolted his moral feeling.
Talent ought to lead him forward on the path of moral development.
"An artist is an artist because he sees things not as he wishes to see them but as they really are" (Maude, 40).
Talent, when unaltered by personal taste makes the observer love what should be loved and hate what ought to be hated.
Maupassant, in his short stories to extol sex-love, but the more he touted it, the more he cursed it for its misfortunes and suffering that lay with sex-love.
The tragedy of Maupassant's life is that his talent, which naturally tends toward good, was freeing him from his wicked circle of influence, only he had not the final strength to break to freedom and died in chains to his chosen master
Notes on Tolstoy, Introduction to S.T. Semenov's Pleasant Stories (1894)
(Originally Written Feb. 18, 2008 in the Journal)
There are three aspects of judging artistic production:
1. The side of its content
2. The form of the work: is it good, beautiful, and in accord with its content?
3. The sincerity of the relation of artist to piece of art
The sincerity of the relation of artist to piece, whether the artist conveys that he sincerely believes what he is conveying is the most important of the three aspects.
The third aspect gives force to the work of art. It makes the art infectious.
To be infectious means to invoke in the observer, the feelings which the artist himself feels.
Semenov manages to make the reader believe that he, the author, would do what the hero does in the story: sincerity. By doing so, he the author, inspires the reader to do the same.
In addition to the sincerity, Semenov matches the form to the content. His striking use of language is new, yet natural. All three of these aspects make his pieces impressive works of art.
There are three aspects of judging artistic production:
1. The side of its content
2. The form of the work: is it good, beautiful, and in accord with its content?
3. The sincerity of the relation of artist to piece of art
The sincerity of the relation of artist to piece, whether the artist conveys that he sincerely believes what he is conveying is the most important of the three aspects.
The third aspect gives force to the work of art. It makes the art infectious.
To be infectious means to invoke in the observer, the feelings which the artist himself feels.
Semenov manages to make the reader believe that he, the author, would do what the hero does in the story: sincerity. By doing so, he the author, inspires the reader to do the same.
In addition to the sincerity, Semenov matches the form to the content. His striking use of language is new, yet natural. All three of these aspects make his pieces impressive works of art.
Notes on Tolstoy, Introduction to Amiel's Journal (1893)
(Originally Written February 18, 2008 in the Journal)
Part III Introduction to Amiel's Journal (1893)
"A writer is precious and necessary for us only to the extent to which he reveals to us the inner labor of his soul... not the architectural structure in which usually, and I think perhaps always, distorting it, he packs his thoughts and feelings" (Maude, 14).
Amiel's undistinguished teaching career and his works poured into ready made molds (his lecture, treatises, and poems) are dead. But, his journal, which is formless is full of life, wisdom, instruction, and consolation will remain one of the best books ever written like other accidental works left to us by Marcus Aurelius, Pascal and Epictetus.
Pascal states there are three types of people:
1. Those who have found God and serve Him
2. Those who have not found him and are seeking him
3. Those who have not found him and are not seeking him
Tolstoy believes that this second category does not exist because those who are seeking and suffering have found God already. He states that Amiel's journal is a lifelong exposé of seeking God.
The power of Amiel's journal is it never ceases to be a search. He does not end at a truth; it is merely a search for it.
Part III Introduction to Amiel's Journal (1893)
"A writer is precious and necessary for us only to the extent to which he reveals to us the inner labor of his soul... not the architectural structure in which usually, and I think perhaps always, distorting it, he packs his thoughts and feelings" (Maude, 14).
Amiel's undistinguished teaching career and his works poured into ready made molds (his lecture, treatises, and poems) are dead. But, his journal, which is formless is full of life, wisdom, instruction, and consolation will remain one of the best books ever written like other accidental works left to us by Marcus Aurelius, Pascal and Epictetus.
Pascal states there are three types of people:
1. Those who have found God and serve Him
2. Those who have not found him and are seeking him
3. Those who have not found him and are not seeking him
Tolstoy believes that this second category does not exist because those who are seeking and suffering have found God already. He states that Amiel's journal is a lifelong exposé of seeking God.
The power of Amiel's journal is it never ceases to be a search. He does not end at a truth; it is merely a search for it.
Notes on Tolstoy, On Truth in Art (1887)
(Originally Written February 18, 2008 in the Journal)
Part II On Truth in Art (1887)
Those who judge stories and fairy tales as untrue and mere fancy, judge them improperly.
"Truth will be known not by him who knows only what has been, is, and really happens, but by him who recognizes what should be according to the will of God" (Maude, 9) - a good theological/epistemological statement.
"Truth is a path" (Maude, 10).
Verbal compositions are good and necessary when they set value on what is good and evil. What is good conforms to what ought to be according to the will of God. What is evil is contrary to what ought to be according to the will of God.
A thought from me: Truth and fact are not synonyms. Fact can be truth, but truth is not necessarily factual as in correlation with the world as is.
In order to write on truth one must write on what ought to be, not what is.
Those men who do not know what is good or evil (what corresponds to what should or should not be according to the will of God) do not write on truth.
Fairy tales or fables in which events never happened or never could happen can be true because they describe the world as it ought to be according to the will of God.
If truth is lacking, no matter how factual a story can be, it is nonetheless false because it lacks the truth of the kingdom of God.
Christ spoke in parables and they have remained eternally true.
Part II On Truth in Art (1887)
Those who judge stories and fairy tales as untrue and mere fancy, judge them improperly.
"Truth will be known not by him who knows only what has been, is, and really happens, but by him who recognizes what should be according to the will of God" (Maude, 9) - a good theological/epistemological statement.
"Truth is a path" (Maude, 10).
Verbal compositions are good and necessary when they set value on what is good and evil. What is good conforms to what ought to be according to the will of God. What is evil is contrary to what ought to be according to the will of God.
A thought from me: Truth and fact are not synonyms. Fact can be truth, but truth is not necessarily factual as in correlation with the world as is.
In order to write on truth one must write on what ought to be, not what is.
Those men who do not know what is good or evil (what corresponds to what should or should not be according to the will of God) do not write on truth.
Fairy tales or fables in which events never happened or never could happen can be true because they describe the world as it ought to be according to the will of God.
If truth is lacking, no matter how factual a story can be, it is nonetheless false because it lacks the truth of the kingdom of God.
Christ spoke in parables and they have remained eternally true.
Notes on Tolstoy, Schoolboys and Art (1860)
(Originally Written Feb. 18, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art? And Essays on Art
Leo Tolstoy
Translated by Aylmer Maude
Hesperides Books, NY 1962
Introduction
How books should be read:
"To understand any book one must choose out the parts that are quite clear, dividing them from what is obscure or confused, and from what is clear we must form our idea of the drift and spirit of the work" (Maude, viii). Basically, this means we must first understand what is clear and intelligible and then once we have done that we can use this understanding to comprehend what is confused or obscure.
What may be comprehensible to some may be confusing to others.
What is comprehensible to all me is the essence of the book.
Art (my thesis!): "an activity by means of which one man, having experienced a feeling, intentionally transmits it to others" (Maude, viii).
Schools can teach a person to create something that can resemble art, but only when a person creates from his feelings can art be achieved.
Unless form is met, no art can be created.
Art shapes, forms, and develops a man's feelings. That is why it is so important.
Art is judged on its form and its power to transmit feelings.
Part I Schoolboys and art (1860)
Not everything that exists, exists for use. There is also beauty and art is beauty.
Each boy understood the difference between utility and beauty differently, but they all knew there was a difference.
What is Art? And Essays on Art
Leo Tolstoy
Translated by Aylmer Maude
Hesperides Books, NY 1962
Introduction
How books should be read:
"To understand any book one must choose out the parts that are quite clear, dividing them from what is obscure or confused, and from what is clear we must form our idea of the drift and spirit of the work" (Maude, viii). Basically, this means we must first understand what is clear and intelligible and then once we have done that we can use this understanding to comprehend what is confused or obscure.
What may be comprehensible to some may be confusing to others.
What is comprehensible to all me is the essence of the book.
Art (my thesis!): "an activity by means of which one man, having experienced a feeling, intentionally transmits it to others" (Maude, viii).
Schools can teach a person to create something that can resemble art, but only when a person creates from his feelings can art be achieved.
Unless form is met, no art can be created.
Art shapes, forms, and develops a man's feelings. That is why it is so important.
Art is judged on its form and its power to transmit feelings.
Part I Schoolboys and art (1860)
Not everything that exists, exists for use. There is also beauty and art is beauty.
Each boy understood the difference between utility and beauty differently, but they all knew there was a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)