(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.
Monday, March 3, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)