(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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 6
Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 5
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 4
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (B)
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (A)
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 2
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Chapter 2
Tolstoy is angered about the money that the government gives to the arts by taking money from the poor who never get to experience what their money goes to.
We must decide if art is so good and so important as to redeem the evil that art causes.
Art lies between the practically useful and all unsuccessful attempts at art.
The common answer to what is art? Is that which creates beauty. The problem with this answer is that it assumes the concept of beauty is fully known. But, it is obscure and cloudy.
In Russian, the word Krasotá (beauty) means only that which pleases the sight.
Could beauty be defined as "that which pleases the senses" so long as we include an ethical, moral and religious sense to the other five senses?
The concept of good (in Russian) entails the concept of beauty, but the concept of beauty (in Russian) does not entail the concept of good. In every other European language beauty and good are conceptually synonymous. But, these other languages now have no suitable word to express beauty of form.
What is Art?
Chapter 2
Tolstoy is angered about the money that the government gives to the arts by taking money from the poor who never get to experience what their money goes to.
We must decide if art is so good and so important as to redeem the evil that art causes.
Art lies between the practically useful and all unsuccessful attempts at art.
The common answer to what is art? Is that which creates beauty. The problem with this answer is that it assumes the concept of beauty is fully known. But, it is obscure and cloudy.
In Russian, the word Krasotá (beauty) means only that which pleases the sight.
Could beauty be defined as "that which pleases the senses" so long as we include an ethical, moral and religious sense to the other five senses?
The concept of good (in Russian) entails the concept of beauty, but the concept of beauty (in Russian) does not entail the concept of good. In every other European language beauty and good are conceptually synonymous. But, these other languages now have no suitable word to express beauty of form.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art, Chapter 1
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Chapter 1
Much is spent to pursue art, including the sacrifice of the lives of men.
People are turned into specialists by numbering them to every other important aspect of life.
Is art for art's sake worth all the cruelty and malice it takes?
Art has turned men against one another. Different schools disown other schools or all others. Each member of a school is so devoted to his own personal fancy that the very definition of art is muddled.
Can we allow a thing we cannot even define to swallow so many lives?
What is Art?
Chapter 1
Much is spent to pursue art, including the sacrifice of the lives of men.
People are turned into specialists by numbering them to every other important aspect of life.
Is art for art's sake worth all the cruelty and malice it takes?
Art has turned men against one another. Different schools disown other schools or all others. Each member of a school is so devoted to his own personal fancy that the very definition of art is muddled.
Can we allow a thing we cannot even define to swallow so many lives?
Notes on Tolstoy, On Art (1895-7) C
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal).
A work of art will be perfect when its content is important and significant to all men and therefore, moral. The expression will be clear and intelligible to all and therefore, beautiful. The author's relation to his work will be sincere and therefore, true.
Imperfect works will meet each of these criteria to a lesser degree.
Imperfect works will fall under one of three categories:
1. Those with important content
2. Those with extraordinary beauty
3. Those with heartfelt sincerity
The young artists tend to have their work stand out for sincerity. Among older artists their work stands out for content. Laborious artists tend to have their work stand out for beauty.
All works of art, and in general, all mental activities are appraised and are appraisable based on these three fundamental qualities.
Art is correctly evaluated only when all three conditions are taken into account. Art is incorrectly evaluated on one or two categories, but not the third.
Evaluating art on only one category lowers the general level of what is demanded of art.
The prevalent theories of aesthetics each err on focusing on only one category.
Tendencious art theory accept duly the moral aspect of the piece. It praises solely based on the content. Art for art's sake only considers art based on beauty and form. The realistic theory only considers the author's relation to the piece. Each of these theories forgets a fundamental part of the creation of art: The artist's ability to see something new and important.
In order for a man to see new things that are also important things, the artist must be morally enlightened.
An artist cannot be selfish.
If an artist can see what is new and important he will find the form to express it and he will sincerely do so.
The artist must work solely to satisfy his inner needs and not to satisfy external forces.
True works of art stem from revelation which we cannot fully grasp and arise from the soul of the artist. This art, when expressed, light up the path on which humanity progresses.
A work of art will be perfect when its content is important and significant to all men and therefore, moral. The expression will be clear and intelligible to all and therefore, beautiful. The author's relation to his work will be sincere and therefore, true.
Imperfect works will meet each of these criteria to a lesser degree.
Imperfect works will fall under one of three categories:
1. Those with important content
2. Those with extraordinary beauty
3. Those with heartfelt sincerity
The young artists tend to have their work stand out for sincerity. Among older artists their work stands out for content. Laborious artists tend to have their work stand out for beauty.
All works of art, and in general, all mental activities are appraised and are appraisable based on these three fundamental qualities.
Art is correctly evaluated only when all three conditions are taken into account. Art is incorrectly evaluated on one or two categories, but not the third.
Evaluating art on only one category lowers the general level of what is demanded of art.
The prevalent theories of aesthetics each err on focusing on only one category.
Tendencious art theory accept duly the moral aspect of the piece. It praises solely based on the content. Art for art's sake only considers art based on beauty and form. The realistic theory only considers the author's relation to the piece. Each of these theories forgets a fundamental part of the creation of art: The artist's ability to see something new and important.
In order for a man to see new things that are also important things, the artist must be morally enlightened.
An artist cannot be selfish.
If an artist can see what is new and important he will find the form to express it and he will sincerely do so.
The artist must work solely to satisfy his inner needs and not to satisfy external forces.
True works of art stem from revelation which we cannot fully grasp and arise from the soul of the artist. This art, when expressed, light up the path on which humanity progresses.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Early thoughts on the Problem of Evil
(Originally written February 27, 2008 in Book 22)
Evil then exists in a vacuum. This vacuum is created by the self-deprivation of God's ultimate goodness. Evil is the cause of sin. Sin therefore exists in a vacuum.
Evil then exists in a vacuum. This vacuum is created by the self-deprivation of God's ultimate goodness. Evil is the cause of sin. Sin therefore exists in a vacuum.
As a result of sin, Adam & Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden (which was Heaven on Earth). Earth is corrupted now along with all of its inhabitants, even the beings and created things without free will. Earth is a vacuum, void of God's goodness. Thus, evil and sin exist in the world.
God removed his ultimate goodness in the world by removing himself from Earth and breaking a "physical" communion and vindicating ultimate righteousness and ultimate holiness. However, all of creation, that is not a free-will being is still a testament to God's creative power. They work on instinct and still taste in His ultimate goodness, yet they are in this vacuum of the world and are subsequently subject to imperfections seen as mutations or adaptations. In this world, the only free will beings are humans. They still revel in the remnants of God's ultimate goodness because they are made in the image of God.
Imagine it this way. God is the sun and man is the moon. The sun gives a perfect light to the world. It illuminates the world, heats it, and sustains life. God illuminates the world and sustains all life in it. Hypothetically imagine that, the sun were much closer to the Earth, so close that it lit up the entirety of the world all at once, without burning it up. This is how God was before the Fall. He dwelled on Earth and walked on the Garden. As a result of man's rebellion God removed himself (theoretically the sun returned to its original place). However the sun still illuminates part of the earth part of the time and sustains it continually. So too does God illuminate some creation some of the time, but sustain it all of the time. Since the world is now devoid of God's ultimate goodness it has been corrupted and at times, God's creation, namely man, cannot see his illumination or feel his sustaining power. The sun too is blocked by imperfection in the world (clouds) clouds can partially block or fully block the light of the Sun, but cannot stop it from sustaining the world. So too can the state of fallen creation partially or fully block the illumination of God, but cannot prevent God's ability to sustain life.
Man, being created in the image of God, has some of God's attributes and subsequently some of his abilities, but not all. God is to man as the Sun is to the moon. God is completely perfect whereas man was (prior to the Fall) perfect, yet a fragmented perfection. Man reflects the perfect image of God. God (and the Sun) are unaffected by the imperfections like Evil and sin (for the Sun oncoming asteroids or comets). They cannot hurt him. Sin and Evil have smashed into humanity like the asteroids and comets into the moon causing both man and the moon to be scarred and crater filled. These distortions have caused man's reflection of God (or the moon's reflection of the Sun) to be even less complete than a reflection already.
Class Notes on Spinoza and Leibniz
(Originally written February 27, 2006 in Book 22)
Class Notes: Spinoza
God
-has infinite attributes through which his essence can be conceived, but only two of them are knowable by man: mind and body
- mind and body are different but not of different substances
- god is substances. substance has infinite attributes, those attributes have infinite modes of being
-double aspect monism (one substance, two attributes)
-self=the two attributes of god (mind and body) united
Spinoza = 1 Substance (god)
Descartes = 2 Substances (mind and body)
Linehan - a set of (very high) of created substances. This tiny sub molecular substances form together to create a physical object or possibly could the elements be the smallest "substance" and that everything that is, is created by the combining of them. This set number of substances combined in various ways combine with other combinations that combine again, again and so forth to form complex objects like human beings.
Leibniz (1646-1716)
Leibniz accused Newton (and vice-versa) of stealing his invention of Calculus.
Leibniz was an overall genius.
Leibniz was a Christian (pious Lutheran)
Sought to unify the Christian Church and all of Europe to a single state.
Epistemology - distinguishes between two types of truth:
1) Truths of reason (a priori). True in all possible worlds.
2) Truths of fact (a posteriori). True in this world and other possible worlds, but not all.
Primary truths (first truths)
-They fall into both categories
Primary truths of fact
ex. "I exist", "something other than me exists"
True proposition: one whose predicate is contained in the subject, "a triangle is three-sided", "Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC"
Leibniz: 2 Sources of Knowledge
1) Senses
- Gives us fluctuating data
- Perceive regularities, not necessities
2) Innate ideas
- From the mind's reflecting on its own operations
Examples: unity, plurality
- Equality, differences, etc.
- "Natural inclinations"
- Contra Locke (mind is not tabula rasa)
- Mind is like "veined marble"
Class Notes: Spinoza
God
-has infinite attributes through which his essence can be conceived, but only two of them are knowable by man: mind and body
- mind and body are different but not of different substances
- god is substances. substance has infinite attributes, those attributes have infinite modes of being
-double aspect monism (one substance, two attributes)
-self=the two attributes of god (mind and body) united
Spinoza = 1 Substance (god)
Descartes = 2 Substances (mind and body)
Linehan - a set of (very high) of created substances. This tiny sub molecular substances form together to create a physical object or possibly could the elements be the smallest "substance" and that everything that is, is created by the combining of them. This set number of substances combined in various ways combine with other combinations that combine again, again and so forth to form complex objects like human beings.
Leibniz (1646-1716)
Leibniz accused Newton (and vice-versa) of stealing his invention of Calculus.
Leibniz was an overall genius.
Leibniz was a Christian (pious Lutheran)
Sought to unify the Christian Church and all of Europe to a single state.
Epistemology - distinguishes between two types of truth:
1) Truths of reason (a priori). True in all possible worlds.
2) Truths of fact (a posteriori). True in this world and other possible worlds, but not all.
Primary truths (first truths)
-They fall into both categories
Primary truths of fact
ex. "I exist", "something other than me exists"
True proposition: one whose predicate is contained in the subject, "a triangle is three-sided", "Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC"
Leibniz: 2 Sources of Knowledge
1) Senses
- Gives us fluctuating data
- Perceive regularities, not necessities
2) Innate ideas
- From the mind's reflecting on its own operations
Examples: unity, plurality
- Equality, differences, etc.
- "Natural inclinations"
- Contra Locke (mind is not tabula rasa)
- Mind is like "veined marble"
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, On Art (1895-7) B
(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.
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.
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)