In Tolstoy’s “What is Art?” Tolstoy vaguely defines art in multiple ways, and attempts to argue that art is only art if it is universally receptacle. He thinks that many people just “habituate themselves to bad art” (Tolstoy 266). He argues the best art is what is understood by all, namely the “gospel parables, folk legends, fairy tales, and folk songs” (Tolstoy 266) He also argues that it is unjust for art to be incomprehensible to a majority of people, and claims it acts the same on everyone regardless of development or education. He later contradicts himself by saying “If I am but little touches by a Japanese song and a Chinese novel, it is not that I do not understand these productions but that I know and am accustomed to high works of
“The business of art lies in this—to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and inaccessible.” (Tolstoy 267) It needs a purpose, this is a very utilitarian way of thinking and it is sad to see it applied to art. Not that art can’t do this, it can, but it can also be beautiful. Some people will only see it as beautiful but that doesn’t make it stop being art. Some people will think it is ugly, but that’s just their opinion and if they want to claim it is not art, that doesn’t mean it’s not art for the rest of us.
Why does all art need to be understood by everyone? Can we not just let artists paint their visions? Tolstoy feels he is entitled to something from artists. They need to make something he can understand and that addresses an important theme or question of ethics. He wants the common people to be able to understand the art of the upperclassmen. Clearly the common people should just make their own art. An artist, no matter their class, owes the people who view or hear their art nothing. They made something beautiful and that should be
His argument is very narrow minded, claiming that to be good art, art must “always please everyone” (Tolstoy 266). That is a huge generalization; furthermore, if I am not pleased by his writing, is it not art? His use of “good” “always” and “everyone” leads to another huge contradiction. “A good and lofty work of art may be incomprehensible… to erudite, perverted people destitute of religion.” (Tolstoy 268)
Another definition of art according to Tolstoy is “the transmission of feelings flowing from man’s religious perception” (Tolstoy 267). By this logic there can be no good art outside of religious art. Therefore not only do atheists not get art, but a huge chunk of pictures, literature, and music is by his definition not art. He is really just trying to define all art in terms of himself. It must be religious, because he is religious, he must be able to understand it and it needs to “touch” him, and it must be understood by the common people because he wants to identify with
A lot of people might be doubtful that art has much power to make the world a better place. If you asked they would probably summarize art as scribbles or
In Gaut’s essay, “The Ethical Criticism of Art”, he addresses the relevance of an art piece’s ethical value when making an aesthetic evaluation. His key argument revolves around the attitudes that works of art manifest such that he presents the following summary “If a work manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective, and if a work manifests ethically commendable attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically meritorious”. In direct contrast with formalists, who divine a work’s merit through an assessment of its style and compositional aspects, Gaut states that any art piece’s value requires a pro tanto judgement. This pro tanto position allows for pieces considered stylistic masterpieces, to be
People can have many different opinions depending on a topic, but what is truly difficult is getting a complete level of understanding from every opinion, or understanding the point of view of each opinion. Even accepting the points of view can be difficult for some people, who believe that their opinions are right. Luckily, people can learn about the other person’s frame of reference, and at the very least understand the topic or the person a little better. This particular topic is art, which is known for its multiple possible perceptions or its many different messages that it can send a person or group of people. In this way, people can learn more about the thought processes and feelings of others. Unfortunately, with differing opinions,
Art for Art's Sake: Its Fallacy and Viciousness. The Art World, Vol.2. May 1917. 98-102
The color way choice, chaotic lines and idea at a glance is meant to “push the experience of the artist” onto the audience and when it actually succeeds in doing so, Tolstoy defines that as “art” (108). He makes the argument that the real purpose of art is beyond creating “pleasure”(43). Connecting his views back to his religion, he believes that “the purpose of true and good art” is meant to “rid ourselves of the pernicious results of harmful art” (174). He lays out his main definition of art, saying the activity of at is “to evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in ivords, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling”, all don’t through “external signs” (50). The entire purpose of this text is to try and figure out the purpose and functionality of art. What does art do? What is art made for and how is this proven? With such an abstract idea, Tolstoy manages to give a concrete idea of what art is and from that, a solid distinguishing format can be formed to discern what “good” art really is, instead of basing it solely on execution of realism. He does this in a format that can come off as if he listing requirements for a composition to be considered art. As long as all the requirements or qualifications are met,
Cultures all around the world are multi-faceted, comprising the values, morals, and beliefs of vast groups of people. One component that is woven into all cultures some way or another is art. Whether the art form is music, theatre, or visual art, all cultures value these art forms in different ways. Because of this, there have been some drastically opposing views from two of the greatest minds throughout time. Leo Tolstoy (Russian author of one of the most central works of world literature War and Peace) wrote What Is Art? it states if art is universally understood then it is good and has reason to be appreciated. However, Mo Tzu (a well known Chinese philosopher who wrote and debated political and social philosophy) wrote Against Music which expresses that art is disruptive to work and a waste of taxpayer money. Though the reasonings are enormously different, both have validity in their arguments.
Lenin believes that art has a subservient role in society and it should be used as a tool of political systems. Furthermore, Joyce’s role is as a champion of art and insists that great art does serve a purpose. Joyce advocates a traditional form of art, as seen through his retort to Tzara: An artist is the magician put among men to gratify-capriciously- their urge for immortality.
Art is a language of its own and with out he proper understanding, people are like expression goes “left on the outside looking in”. In other words, people without the proper understanding of art, technique and form as well as other elements can’t appreciate a work of art as much as when you understand why an artist painted in the way they did and what they are trying to get across to his audience. Despite artists attempts to try and make their works as viewer friendly as possible, without the understanding and knowledge gained from an art class as this one people will never fully understand the a work of art as it is meant to be.
If I were to ask you what is art, and how can one find it? What would you say? Well if it were me being asked those question, I would simply say that art to me is a form of a picture; a visual painting or model of some design and it could be found all among us. You may define it differently only because art could be defined in many ways. I could simply say that art to me is a form of a picture; a visual painting or model of some design. Well according to an article written by Shelley Esaak, an art history expert she mentioned that art has a way of stimulating different parts of our brains to make us laugh or incite us to riot, with a whole gamut of emotions in between. She also mentioned that art gives us a way to be creative and express ourselves. [1]
He successfully brings out the logic that based on the definition that art is accorded some works can be considered art and some will
...t. It is important that art be simultaneously accessible and enjoyable to the common man. According to Tolstoy, a work of art need not follow all of the guidelines that have been given in the past, such as Aristotle's teaching on the Unities, as long as it carries the principles of instruction and enjoyment. Tolstoy believes that the greatest of unities are the unity found in God and with one's neighbor. The purpose of art is to highlight and influence this unification.
Of course, this argument cannot be held to all art. If that were the case, then a majority of artwork would be then considered worthless. Bell’s principle of aesthetic emotion is far too specific to define such a wide array of visual art. Not to mention, everyone’s interpretation of what
Art is completely severed from morality and according to aestheticism, is autonomous from society’s expectations and views during any age (Shewan 97). Oscar Wilde himself even states in the preface of Dorian Gray that “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all,” which strongly reflects the ideas of aestheticism and its independence from moral influence (1). Whether a person views an artwork as moral or aesthetic also depends on a person’s outlook.
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
Art can be defined in many ways by an individual. One can say that any creative output by a person is considered art. Others contend that art must conform to a societal standard and the basis of the creation should be understood by most intellectual people. For example, some contend that computer-generated images, such as fractals, are not art due to the large role played by a computer. E.O. Wilson states “the exclusive role of the arts is to intensify aesthetic and emotional response. Works of art communicate feeling directly from mind to mind, with no intent to explain why the impact occurs” (218). A simple definition may be that art is the physical expression of the ideals formed by the mind.