Bell on Hume: Bell presents an idea of a progressive form of Hume's ideal critic. The main difference being this; while Hume's true critics were depended on to convey the true values of art, Bell says otherwise. While he certainly agrees that a select few can truly judge art for what it is worth, he says that no other person can enforce his or her view upon him. Bell goes on to say that these critics can only point out subtleties in art that escape the casual observer. And in shedding light on the intricacies of art, he says that through this can a critic help an observer redefine his view of the art.
Bell on Plato: Much like Plato, Bell discusses his view of aesthetic emotion being, out of human life. His term "significant form," certainly eludes to Plato's world of forms, the transcendent world of arts. Bell and Plato both agree that art is in a realm altogether seperate from everyday emotions and everyday life. Bell continues to describe this "kingdom," in which the experience of emotion and form will transport the viewer to said place, which brings us to his ultimate claim, reminiscent of Tolstoy.
Bell on Tolstoy: Bell continues to expand upon the concept of the timelessness of art and the places that the world of art can take one, as it is not grounded in human life or human emotion. He eventually leads to his statement that, "art might prove the world's salvation," (Bell, 269) which screams Tolstoy. It would only make sense that two people, who have Platonic views on the sperate realm of art, could see such a transcendent power of experience, proving the world's salvation. In fact, seeing as Bell sees art as timeless, would that not prove, in his eyes at least, that the most unifying of all ideas on earth to be something that lasts forever? Something that transcends culture, time, and generations of different peoples? If you think about it, the salvation of the world only seems like the next logical step to take, for such philosophers as Tolstoy and Bell, who clearly value it so much as to place it beyond the grasp of normal human experience.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
How does Bell present views that both favor and put down the average viewer of art?
In his writings, Clive Bell comes across as slightly high flown, to put it mildly, yet his lenience to accept that everyone can experience art is unlike many who share his same opinions about the realm of art.
"They have their moments of pure ecstasy; but the moments are short and unsure. Soon they fall back into the world of human interests and feel emotions, good no doubt, but inferior" (Bell, 268).
In this section Bell takes on a more Platonic view of ill equipped art observers, which seems as if it fits in more with his theories on the expertise it takes to truly and consistently recognize and judge the significant form, or absence thereof, in art. He acknowledges a slight experience, but not one nearly as fulfilling as one of a seasoned artist or art critic.
"For, to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions" (Bell, 266).
While Bell also implies a good understanding of the art itself to experience the aesthetic emotion to its fullest extent, this quotation takes a much more empathetic approach to the casual observer of art. While the experience may be fleeting or inchoate, Bell acknowledges the ability of anyone to experience art, to at least a certain degree, unlike many of his predecessors. He allows any person of any intellectual level to have the credit of being able to experience art, as it is truly an experience that relies on the individual emotions of the viewer, and little else.
Why does Bell separate beauty and aesthetically pleasing art, and for what reasons?
"Clearly the word 'beauty' is used to connote the objects of quite distinguishable emotions, and that is a reason for not employing a term which would land me inevitably in confusions and misunderstandings with my readers" (Bell, 264).
Bell distinguishes beauty from aesthetic emotion and significant form, simply because of his views on the use of beauty in today's society. While Bell clearly sees art and the emotion and forms involved as transcendent, we often use beauty to describe flowers, certain people, and the like. All of which, by the way, are objects and people that we encounter in everyday life, in our everyday experiences.
While this is definitely a Dewey-esque view on beauty, it would make sense that Bell would see it the other way. Bell sees the significance of beauty as stipulated to be intertwined in nature and human beings, so it makes perfect sense that he distances himself from the use of the word, as it would be contradictory, for his views at least.
Bell distinguishes beauty from aesthetic emotion and significant form, simply because of his views on the use of beauty in today's society. While Bell clearly sees art and the emotion and forms involved as transcendent, we often use beauty to describe flowers, certain people, and the like. All of which, by the way, are objects and people that we encounter in everyday life, in our everyday experiences.
While this is definitely a Dewey-esque view on beauty, it would make sense that Bell would see it the other way. Bell sees the significance of beauty as stipulated to be intertwined in nature and human beings, so it makes perfect sense that he distances himself from the use of the word, as it would be contradictory, for his views at least.
TA's Question on Bell
How does Clive Bell establish that the aesthetic world is a "world with emotions of its own" in which "the emotions of life find no place" (267)? Do you think he explains this fully? Can you think of reasons or examples as to why he is right/wrong?
Bell states, "We seem to have recognized intellectually the rightness of its forms without staying to fix our attention, and collect, as it were, their emotional significance. If this were so, it would be permissible to inquire whether it was the forms themselves or our perception of their rightness and necessity that caused aesthetic emotion" (Bell, 266).
Bell compares inherent recognition of forms to a mathmetician in the heat of his work. Now, he goes on to imply that the forms themselves, much like mathematical equations, are timeless. For the Pythagorean Theorem worked exactly for us as it did for Pythagoras. He states that like this, great significant form is timeless, and not attached to any particular culture either. In this way, of being devoid of time and human life, does he then make his otherworldly statements. Bell elaborates on pure aesthetic emotion, which he thinks is much different from recalling previous experiences or feelings, and in this do we see light shed on the "peculiar" aesthetic emotion. This is another premise to his conclusion that emotions are in a world of their own, and that they have no place in life.
Bell states, "We seem to have recognized intellectually the rightness of its forms without staying to fix our attention, and collect, as it were, their emotional significance. If this were so, it would be permissible to inquire whether it was the forms themselves or our perception of their rightness and necessity that caused aesthetic emotion" (Bell, 266).
Bell compares inherent recognition of forms to a mathmetician in the heat of his work. Now, he goes on to imply that the forms themselves, much like mathematical equations, are timeless. For the Pythagorean Theorem worked exactly for us as it did for Pythagoras. He states that like this, great significant form is timeless, and not attached to any particular culture either. In this way, of being devoid of time and human life, does he then make his otherworldly statements. Bell elaborates on pure aesthetic emotion, which he thinks is much different from recalling previous experiences or feelings, and in this do we see light shed on the "peculiar" aesthetic emotion. This is another premise to his conclusion that emotions are in a world of their own, and that they have no place in life.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Compartmentalization of Art
"Compartmentalization of occupations and interests brings about separation of that mode of activity commonly called "practice" from insight, of imagination from executive doing, of significant purpose from work, of emotion from thought and doing. Each of these has, too, its own place in which it must abide. Those who write the anatomy of experience then suppose that these divisions inhere in the very constitution of human nature" (Dewey, 301).
Dewey poses a few questions before his assertion on the compartmentalization of art, namely, why is the attempt to connect the higher and ideal things of experience with basic vital roots so often regarded as betrayal of their nature and denial of their virtue? Why is there repulsion when the high achievements of fine art are brought into connection with common life?
Dewey states that the institution of mankind is a very disorganized; hence, stratifying social classes, and institutions for every group of ideas or endeavors. Other ideas that have been compartmentalized are often regarded as good, and bad, or high, and low. These include, materialistic and ideal, profane and spiritual, ect. Dewey suggests that in our efforts to organize an incredibly disorganized world, we assign "correct" interpretations to everything, and eventually, these preordained compartments ensure the second-handness of our experiences. Ethics, politics, business, religion, and art as well, in their private realms, shed the light of what they think is good and bad, valuable, and the opposite.
"Of much of our experience as it is actually lived under present economic and legal institutional conditions, it is only true that these separations hold. Only occasionally in the lives of many are the senses fraught with the sentiment that comes from deep realization...we undergo sensations...without having a sense of the reality that is in them and behind them...we see without feeling; we hear, but only a second-hand report, second hand because not reenforced by vision" (Dewey, 301).
Dewey poses a few questions before his assertion on the compartmentalization of art, namely, why is the attempt to connect the higher and ideal things of experience with basic vital roots so often regarded as betrayal of their nature and denial of their virtue? Why is there repulsion when the high achievements of fine art are brought into connection with common life?
Dewey states that the institution of mankind is a very disorganized; hence, stratifying social classes, and institutions for every group of ideas or endeavors. Other ideas that have been compartmentalized are often regarded as good, and bad, or high, and low. These include, materialistic and ideal, profane and spiritual, ect. Dewey suggests that in our efforts to organize an incredibly disorganized world, we assign "correct" interpretations to everything, and eventually, these preordained compartments ensure the second-handness of our experiences. Ethics, politics, business, religion, and art as well, in their private realms, shed the light of what they think is good and bad, valuable, and the opposite.
"Of much of our experience as it is actually lived under present economic and legal institutional conditions, it is only true that these separations hold. Only occasionally in the lives of many are the senses fraught with the sentiment that comes from deep realization...we undergo sensations...without having a sense of the reality that is in them and behind them...we see without feeling; we hear, but only a second-hand report, second hand because not reenforced by vision" (Dewey, 301).
TA's Question on Dewey
Consider what Dewey has to say about the human experience, emotions, and the influence art has on these. Following Dewey's logic, what implications does capitalism then have not only on art, but on the human psyche and even humanity in general?
Do you think he has a point?
Give a possible solution to this dilemma.
Dewey's definitions of an experience say a lot about his opinions on human experience, emotions, and the influence of art. He talks about the fulfillment and lasting experiences of "real experiences." He speaks of the influence of art as indelible instances in our memory, ones which we constantly recall upon.
"The growth of capitalism has been a powerful influence in the development of the museum as the proper home of works of art, and in the promotion of the idea that they are apart from the common life...These things reflect and establish superior cultural status, while their segregation from the common life reflects the fact that they are not part of a native and spontaneous culture...The mobility of trade and of populations, due to the economic system, has weakened or destroyed the connection between works of art and genius loci of which they were once the natural expression"(Dewey, 299).
I think that the continuity, flow, and beauty of origins that Dewey favors in a true experience of art is lost in the economic and societal battle for approval in the world of "fine art." The original beauty is lost when the most expensive art is collected, setting a bar based on wealth, and a culture based on the power of the groups of individuals collecting the art.
With that being said, I do not think Dewey is referring to museums of natural history, merely museums of fine art. I also think that any solution, no matter how practical, would be futile, however unfortunate that may be. Our globalized world gets smaller and smaller every day, and the only common denominator of who gets what, and what is "fine art," and what is not, is money and power. Attempting to "deregulate" such museums, collections, and galleries would be very difficult. For the sake of the argument, I would say that the best solution to the problem would be lower the economic barriers to the fine art. By making fine art and "common" art available to anyone, without difficulty, the general population would once again be able to decipher for itself the beauty of art, without being biased or predisposed to what the art is worth, or where it is being showed or displayed.
Do you think he has a point?
Give a possible solution to this dilemma.
Dewey's definitions of an experience say a lot about his opinions on human experience, emotions, and the influence of art. He talks about the fulfillment and lasting experiences of "real experiences." He speaks of the influence of art as indelible instances in our memory, ones which we constantly recall upon.
"The growth of capitalism has been a powerful influence in the development of the museum as the proper home of works of art, and in the promotion of the idea that they are apart from the common life...These things reflect and establish superior cultural status, while their segregation from the common life reflects the fact that they are not part of a native and spontaneous culture...The mobility of trade and of populations, due to the economic system, has weakened or destroyed the connection between works of art and genius loci of which they were once the natural expression"(Dewey, 299).
I think that the continuity, flow, and beauty of origins that Dewey favors in a true experience of art is lost in the economic and societal battle for approval in the world of "fine art." The original beauty is lost when the most expensive art is collected, setting a bar based on wealth, and a culture based on the power of the groups of individuals collecting the art.
With that being said, I do not think Dewey is referring to museums of natural history, merely museums of fine art. I also think that any solution, no matter how practical, would be futile, however unfortunate that may be. Our globalized world gets smaller and smaller every day, and the only common denominator of who gets what, and what is "fine art," and what is not, is money and power. Attempting to "deregulate" such museums, collections, and galleries would be very difficult. For the sake of the argument, I would say that the best solution to the problem would be lower the economic barriers to the fine art. By making fine art and "common" art available to anyone, without difficulty, the general population would once again be able to decipher for itself the beauty of art, without being biased or predisposed to what the art is worth, or where it is being showed or displayed.
How would Dewey view the pop culture of our art world today?
Dewey has a skeptical view of the industrialization of art, with good reason. He states that artists are not meant to produce on demand, and that the mechanization of art pushes individualism and other unique traits to the side. However, he does include that this pressure pushes some artists to become more individualistic, which cannot be a bad thing.
"Because of changes in industrial conditions the artist has been pushed to one side form the main streams of active interest. Industry has been mechanized and an artist cannot work mechanically for mass productions...A peculiar esthetic 'individualism' results. Artist find it incumbent upon them to betake themselves to their work as an isolated means of 'self expression'...Consequently artistic products take on to a still greater degree the air of something independent and esoteric" (Dewey, 299).
Dewey makes an interesting point here, that perhaps the industrialization of art causes artists to become so wrapped up in their individuality, that their works can convey less and less meaning to the average viewer. Nevertheless, Dewey frowns upon such mass production; I think he would be somewhat skeptical of the pop culture of art today, especially music. For as many artists that can be heard all over the country, on every radio station, there are genres and composers that apply to a very few select group of people.
"Because of changes in industrial conditions the artist has been pushed to one side form the main streams of active interest. Industry has been mechanized and an artist cannot work mechanically for mass productions...A peculiar esthetic 'individualism' results. Artist find it incumbent upon them to betake themselves to their work as an isolated means of 'self expression'...Consequently artistic products take on to a still greater degree the air of something independent and esoteric" (Dewey, 299).
Dewey makes an interesting point here, that perhaps the industrialization of art causes artists to become so wrapped up in their individuality, that their works can convey less and less meaning to the average viewer. Nevertheless, Dewey frowns upon such mass production; I think he would be somewhat skeptical of the pop culture of art today, especially music. For as many artists that can be heard all over the country, on every radio station, there are genres and composers that apply to a very few select group of people.
How would Dewey place values on "productive" art, versus purely aesthetic art?
Unlike many before him, Dewey does not view the human perception as an imperfect "intellectual telescope," meaning that he doesn't think the viewing of aesthetic art without intellectual value is the right question to ask to begin with. He is much more clear about the experience of the viewer, as opposed to the content he or she is actually viewing. He describes an experience as, "when the material experienced runs its course in fulfillment...Such an experience is a whole and carries with it its own individualizing quality and self-sufficiency. It is an experience" (Dewey, 305).
It is clear that Dewey does not address the value of purely aesthetic art, because he does not view the human eye as a filter for intellectualism. This is not the angle, nor the question, that Dewey addresses when examining art. "Art as Experience," is, in fact, the art that we experience in every day life, and in defining the "real experiences," from the incomplete ones, Dewey sheds light on my question in his own unique way.
" 'real experiences'; those things of which we say in recalling them, 'that was an experience.' It may have been something of tremendous importance...Or it may have been something that in comparison was slight- and which perhaps because of its very slightness illustrates all the better what is is to be an experience" (Dewey, 305).
It is clear that Dewey does not address the value of purely aesthetic art, because he does not view the human eye as a filter for intellectualism. This is not the angle, nor the question, that Dewey addresses when examining art. "Art as Experience," is, in fact, the art that we experience in every day life, and in defining the "real experiences," from the incomplete ones, Dewey sheds light on my question in his own unique way.
" 'real experiences'; those things of which we say in recalling them, 'that was an experience.' It may have been something of tremendous importance...Or it may have been something that in comparison was slight- and which perhaps because of its very slightness illustrates all the better what is is to be an experience" (Dewey, 305).
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Views on Religion and Art: Tolstoy vs. Hume
In his work, Tolstoy seemed fond of the idea that art would unite a universal brotherhood. He also explains that the only way this artistic progress can be made is by creating art within the religion based flow of ideas. Now, Tolstoy defines religion as more of living a humanitarian lifestyle, but all the same, dictates that art without religious perception is counterproductive.
Hume has much different views on the subject, although, like most of his words, focuses more on the legitimate merit of art in general. His ideas of religious influence on art is much different than Tolstoy.
"Religious principles are also a blemish in any polite composition, when they rise up to superstition, and intrude themselves into every sentiment, however remote from any connection with religion" (Hume, 112).
When Hume is explaining what makes a good critic, he includes a well learned person, especially one no biased or jaded by a lifetime of influence by one culture in particular. He says that a person too predisposed to one culture in particular cannot judge art from another, and would tend to favor art with nuances from his or her heritage. I think Hume is classifying religion as such, an element of culture, and with that being said, sees the religious metaphors in art as bias towards one culture over another, and therefore, makes the artist or critic unable to fairly judge the art with art from around the world.
TA's Question on Hume
On page 106, Hume says that great poets like Homer were praised in the time they were writing and are still highly praised today. Perhaps even more highly regarded because of their longevity. There are countless works of art that we understand to be great coming from their time and because they have stood the test of time.
My question is, what if Homer's Iliad and Odyssey had been written not thousands of years ago, but in this day and age? Disregarding that literature would be very different because of it, and assuming they were written as exactly the same pieces, how would we react? How would we react according to Hume's logic?
I think one would first have to establish more ground rules for this thought. I think that a few of the biggest reasons that the Iliad and Odyssey are so revered are the fact that they taught lessons, and captivated the cultural essence of their times. They were also very original and groundbreaking works. I think the literary mastery was icing on the cake, so, to answer the question, they may not be as renowned today if they were published tomorrow.
With that being said, more appropriately, it would be a question one could not answer. Simply because of the fact that they catered to the culture of their specific time, and were highly original. If we were to contemplate their entry into the world of art today, wouldn't they be skimming of the works of a few other bodies of literature, at the very least? Would it be slightly odd to right about the beliefs and stories that no one really holds today? And if not, how would we take it at face value? As a cultural fingerprint or merely entertainment? I think it would be difficult to recreate a scenario like that in our minds, but if we were, and under the assumption that they were the precedent to any other works that were to be built off of them, I would say, that Hume would think the true value of the art would show, and over time, at least, the world would accept the art for what it was, and is.
My question is, what if Homer's Iliad and Odyssey had been written not thousands of years ago, but in this day and age? Disregarding that literature would be very different because of it, and assuming they were written as exactly the same pieces, how would we react? How would we react according to Hume's logic?
I think one would first have to establish more ground rules for this thought. I think that a few of the biggest reasons that the Iliad and Odyssey are so revered are the fact that they taught lessons, and captivated the cultural essence of their times. They were also very original and groundbreaking works. I think the literary mastery was icing on the cake, so, to answer the question, they may not be as renowned today if they were published tomorrow.
With that being said, more appropriately, it would be a question one could not answer. Simply because of the fact that they catered to the culture of their specific time, and were highly original. If we were to contemplate their entry into the world of art today, wouldn't they be skimming of the works of a few other bodies of literature, at the very least? Would it be slightly odd to right about the beliefs and stories that no one really holds today? And if not, how would we take it at face value? As a cultural fingerprint or merely entertainment? I think it would be difficult to recreate a scenario like that in our minds, but if we were, and under the assumption that they were the precedent to any other works that were to be built off of them, I would say, that Hume would think the true value of the art would show, and over time, at least, the world would accept the art for what it was, and is.
How would Hume defend his idea of a universal taste to cultural and societal evolution?
Hume offers a quite satisfying explanation for the changes of taste or judgement over time, by saying that these changes were not specifically correct judgments in the first place. He can accredit the aesthetic value to a work of art, but says that these fads will come and go over time, and that time alone will reveal the true art, and the true critics.
"Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. Aristotle, and Plato, and Epicurus, and Descartes, may successively yield to each other: But Terence and Virgil maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men" (Hume, 110).
Hume explains that we will always have art of passion and significance, and they will succeed each other over time, yet true works of merit will stand the test of time. He states later, that this especially proves to be true when some significant works with both aesthetic appeal and true value are created; one part eventually falls away, yet the other, remains, an aspect of praise. This is a very good example of how Hume would distinguish what is truly good art.
"The abstract philosophy of Cicero has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration" (Hume, 110).
"Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. Aristotle, and Plato, and Epicurus, and Descartes, may successively yield to each other: But Terence and Virgil maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men" (Hume, 110).
Hume explains that we will always have art of passion and significance, and they will succeed each other over time, yet true works of merit will stand the test of time. He states later, that this especially proves to be true when some significant works with both aesthetic appeal and true value are created; one part eventually falls away, yet the other, remains, an aspect of praise. This is a very good example of how Hume would distinguish what is truly good art.
"The abstract philosophy of Cicero has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration" (Hume, 110).
What would Hume say to two “critics,” who blatantly disagreed on a profound piece of art?
This may be the best counter example to Hume's definitions of art and the viewers of art. As we talked about it in class, there seems to be a hint of circular reasoning on his (Hume's) part, which begs the questions; how can one tell a critic is good?... Because he judges classic art favorably... and this classical art was first deemed favorable by a "good" critic in the first place..
"Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and , nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty...Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society, by the soundness of their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind" (Hume, 109-10).
With that being said, how can society distinguish one person's view of art as superior, when so few are qualified to give judgement in the first place? Hume says that society will eventually dictate the true critics from the false ones, yet also says that these same men approving one man cannot truly judge the art for themselves. And what of the original art? Hume often refers to the works of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Descartes, as literature that will stand the test of time, as truly good art. Yet who deemed it so in the first place? His explanation somewhat skirts the matter by offering answer A for question B, and then offering that question B (explanation) for the clarification of answer A. While I greatly admired most of Hume's opinions on art, I did find this one instance in particular somewhat questionable.
"Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and , nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty...Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society, by the soundness of their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind" (Hume, 109-10).
With that being said, how can society distinguish one person's view of art as superior, when so few are qualified to give judgement in the first place? Hume says that society will eventually dictate the true critics from the false ones, yet also says that these same men approving one man cannot truly judge the art for themselves. And what of the original art? Hume often refers to the works of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Descartes, as literature that will stand the test of time, as truly good art. Yet who deemed it so in the first place? His explanation somewhat skirts the matter by offering answer A for question B, and then offering that question B (explanation) for the clarification of answer A. While I greatly admired most of Hume's opinions on art, I did find this one instance in particular somewhat questionable.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Wrapping Up Tolstoy
So far in class this semester, we have analyzed two individuals with two different opinions on art. While they both provide valuable insight as to what art might and could be, I couldn't help but notice that we concluded Plato's assertions to be somewhat shallow, and Tolstoy to be a novelist, merely dabbling in philosophy, however impressive his work was. One thing I think everyone can take from Tolstoy's work, was his opinion that art provides a medium of communication that can succeed in bring people together.
Art, or good art, can bring out a common denominator among groups of people that possibly would have nothing else in common. While Tolstoy never really explains the option of a moving piece of art in which the intention is different from a dramatic reception, his view that art can bring many diverse crowds together is something that I'm sure happens every day.
Art, or good art, can bring out a common denominator among groups of people that possibly would have nothing else in common. While Tolstoy never really explains the option of a moving piece of art in which the intention is different from a dramatic reception, his view that art can bring many diverse crowds together is something that I'm sure happens every day.
Despite the fact that Tolstoy calls for use of specific emotion in art, which is different than Plato’s views, how are they similar in other regards?
"And in order to do that it is primarily necessary to examine that activity in itself, in its dependence on its causes, and in connection with its effects, and not merely in relation to the pleasure we can get from it" (Tolstoy, 234).
While Tolstoy exhibits many differences in his opinions on art than Plato does, I did see a connection, in the fact that both place skeptism on the idea of art for pure aesthetic pleasure. While Plato is much more critical of purely aesthetic art, Tolstoy too sees that there may be a misconception behind the reasons and motives of creating art for the sole purpose of aesthetic beauty.
"Just as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be pleasure cannot recognize the real meaning of eating, so people who consider the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize its true meaning and purpose..." (Tolstoy, 235).
Just as many philosophers in the past have stated, that food for the mind is equally as important as food for the body, and that one cannot truly appreciate the pleasure of eating food (literally) before they also realize the value of its nourishment, Tolstoy makes the point that art is like food. One can only appreciate the aesthetic pleasure of art if only at first they realize the art's intellectual or symbolic value.
While Tolstoy exhibits many differences in his opinions on art than Plato does, I did see a connection, in the fact that both place skeptism on the idea of art for pure aesthetic pleasure. While Plato is much more critical of purely aesthetic art, Tolstoy too sees that there may be a misconception behind the reasons and motives of creating art for the sole purpose of aesthetic beauty.
"Just as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be pleasure cannot recognize the real meaning of eating, so people who consider the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize its true meaning and purpose..." (Tolstoy, 235).
Just as many philosophers in the past have stated, that food for the mind is equally as important as food for the body, and that one cannot truly appreciate the pleasure of eating food (literally) before they also realize the value of its nourishment, Tolstoy makes the point that art is like food. One can only appreciate the aesthetic pleasure of art if only at first they realize the art's intellectual or symbolic value.
Tolstoy says that our art should be “appraised on the basis of that religious perception”; why then does he frown upon the “so-called Renaissance”?
"The chief mistake made by people of the upper classes of the time of the so-called Renaissance - a mistake which we still perpetuate- was not that they ceased to value and to attach importance to religious art (people of that period could not attach importance to it, because, like out own upper classes, they could not believe in what the majority considered to be religion)" (Tolstoy, 242).
I think Tolstoy was trying to say that, while he thinks art can only make progress through religious perception, the most powerful people of the Renaissance did not continue that progress. Tolstoy always talks about how art will bring mankind together, to eventually, form a universal brotherhood. While he also states that art can only attain this type of unity and progress through religious perception, he also knows that art in which religion is used as a vehicle to create does not always entail that it coincides with the best perception of the time. Tolstoy used the Renaissance as his example.
He says that while the art had a certain religious aspect, the audience, mostly the upper classes, was quite limited and did not convey religious meaning that the general public shared at the time. Therefore, while the art was very religiously influenced, he deemed it bad art, because it failed to uphold the second part to his condition of progress towards the brotherhood; it failed to unify the people. Tolstoy knew that religious art was only effective if it shared in the religious beliefs of the masses, not the fancies of the upper echelon.
I think Tolstoy was trying to say that, while he thinks art can only make progress through religious perception, the most powerful people of the Renaissance did not continue that progress. Tolstoy always talks about how art will bring mankind together, to eventually, form a universal brotherhood. While he also states that art can only attain this type of unity and progress through religious perception, he also knows that art in which religion is used as a vehicle to create does not always entail that it coincides with the best perception of the time. Tolstoy used the Renaissance as his example.
He says that while the art had a certain religious aspect, the audience, mostly the upper classes, was quite limited and did not convey religious meaning that the general public shared at the time. Therefore, while the art was very religiously influenced, he deemed it bad art, because it failed to uphold the second part to his condition of progress towards the brotherhood; it failed to unify the people. Tolstoy knew that religious art was only effective if it shared in the religious beliefs of the masses, not the fancies of the upper echelon.
TA's Q: How does artistic and creative quality figure in to Tolstoy's definition of art as a means to unite people and their emotions?
I think artistic and creative quality plays a major role in Tolstoy's definition of art, especially when you begin to measure the degrees and ramifications for, "infectiousness." However, I agree with Nicole's earlier comment, that due to human empathy, perhaps even a touching story or tragedy reported in a newspaper could be considered art, providing the reader experiences the appropriate emotion invoked by the piece.
However, I think Tolstoy would say that there remains a difference. In most newspapers, the writing is informative, or critical. I would say that the journalist or reporter does not feel the raw emotion of say, a decorated war hero, that the soldier himself/herself would feel if they related the story directly to the reader. While an empathetic reader may experience the emotions experienced by the source of the story itself, I feel as if the middle man, (the reporter), would break the bond of consciousness that Tolstoy describes as a facet of truly great art. There is no doubt that perhaps the reporter, the source of the story, and the reader all experience similar emotions, however, I would say that by Tolstoy's definition of art at least, it would not be true art.
"So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance" (Tolstoy, 237).
However, I think Tolstoy would say that there remains a difference. In most newspapers, the writing is informative, or critical. I would say that the journalist or reporter does not feel the raw emotion of say, a decorated war hero, that the soldier himself/herself would feel if they related the story directly to the reader. While an empathetic reader may experience the emotions experienced by the source of the story itself, I feel as if the middle man, (the reporter), would break the bond of consciousness that Tolstoy describes as a facet of truly great art. There is no doubt that perhaps the reporter, the source of the story, and the reader all experience similar emotions, however, I would say that by Tolstoy's definition of art at least, it would not be true art.
"So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance" (Tolstoy, 237).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)