A Christian moralist philistine who once wrote some famous novels now turns to put the entire affair of secular artistic production to the stake. He’s of proto-socialist views but condemns Marx, and fools himself into thinking that it’s “natural,” purifying, & ennobling to be forced into a life of backbreaking drudgery. He sees neither the necessity nor the opportunity to abolish work but prefers to seize on the religious feeling held by rural workers & peasants as the source of the highest art.

Tolstoy sees the problems of the class division which shapes art and the division of labor which consigns recognized, ruling-class art to be made by professionals, and the cultural production of the dominated classes to be condemned to non-art status. Having replaced a scientific class analysis with his bucolic countryside of saintly farmers, though, he can’t see these problems accurately, let alone see that art itself is something to be superseded. Instead he lays out a schematic: human religious feeling climbed up from the low state held by (presumably racially inferior) “savages” to the high, “civilized” state held by monotheism, on top of which sits Christianity. This genuine Christianity was immediately distorted by official church Christianity - popery! Yet the art of the jesuitical papists, soiled by sensuousness and sex, was still higher than previous European art, and than the art of non-Christians and “savages,” as it was closer to god. European art from the Renaissance onward turned away from this highly civilized and pure religious feeling towards “beauty” - towards sinful sensuousness, pornography, pleasure. All European ruling-class artistic production since has been spoiled by this quest, and he specifically condemns his own work & that of a number of others, including Dante & Milton, Shakespeare & Goethe, Pushkin, Zola, Ibsen; Bach, Beethoven, Wagner; Baudelaire & Verlaine. He recognizes in distorted fashion some of the technical dynamics of 19th century European art, condemning them all as devices for the pursuit of pleasure, sinful filth which he’s come to burn away.

For the future he imagines a simple art of perfect clarity, containing no unnecessary elements, to be made not by professional specialists but by the toilers themselves expressing their Christian feelings. That this will obviously be an expression of human misery doesn’t concern him. Though he condemns specialization & realism, his general orientation smacks of the Socialist Realism of the Stalinist counterrevolution, which of course was neither socialist nor realistic. Tolstoy’s entire vision is one not of liberation but of moral imprisonment.

Unlike many works of aesthetics which tend to be overly abstract and dense, using technical terms from philosophy and a layering of sophisticated concepts, Leo Tolstoy’s book is clear-cut, employing language and ideas anybody interested in the subject can understand.

Tolstoy is passionate about art and art's place within human experience. For many years, he tells us, he has been observing art and reading about art. And what he sees and reads is not pretty. For instance, he goes to a rehearsal of opera: "All is stopped, and the director, turning to the orchestra, attacks the French horn, scolding him in the rudest of terms, as cabmen abuse each other, for taking the wrong note."

Seen through Tolstoy's eyes, the entire production is a ridiculous, grotesque, overblown extravagance. We can imagine Tolstoy shaking his head when he observes, "It would be difficult to find a more repulsive sight."

Tolstoy presents a detailed sampling of what philosophers and aestheticians have written about art and beauty throughout history, particularly since the eighteenth century, when aesthetics became a subject unto itself. The theories range from art being an expression of divine truth to art being a titillation of the senses of seeing, hearing, feeling and even tasting and smelling. Tolstoy notes toward the end of his study, "Therefore, however strange it may seem to say so, in spite of the mountains of books written about art, no exact definition of art has been constructed. And the reason for this is that the conception of art has been based on the conception of beauty." According to Tolstoy, we must investigate a better way to view art than linking art with beauty.

Further on, Tolstoy gives us an example of a young art gallery-goer being baffled at the painting of the various modern schools of art, impressionism, post-impressionism and the like. Tolstoy empathizes with the gallery-goer and knows most other ordinary folk share this same reaction, as when he states: "the majority of people who are in sympathy with me, do not understand the productions of the new art, simply because there is nothing in it to understand, and because it is bad art."

Why is this the case in the modern world? Tolstoy lays the blame on the artistic and spiritual fragmentation of a society divided by class, "As soon as ever the art of the upper classes separated itself from universal art, a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be incomprehensible to the masses."

Tolstoy views the modern institutionalization of art with its professional artists and art critics supported by the upper class as the prime culprit responsible for a plethora of artworks that are degrading, meaningless and fake. He writes: "Becoming ever poorer and poorer in subject-matter, and more and more unintelligible in form, the art of the upper classes, in its latest productions, has even lost all the characteristics of art, and has been replaced by imitations of art."

To compound the problem, Tolstoy tells us schools teaching art take mankind away from what is true in art, "To produce such counterfeits, definite rules or recipes exist in each branch of art." We come to see, with Tolstoy as our guide, how aspiring artists are given these counterfeits as models to follow and imitate; things have gone so far that creating art is reduced to "acquiring the knack." Anybody who is familiar with the way in which writing is taught in today's colleges and universities will see how exactly right Tolstoy is on this point - students are given a collection of essays written by modern writers in which to model their own writing.

Tolstoy provides more examples of false, muddled, insincere, bad art. His description of an opera by Richard Wagner is laugh out loud funny. We read: "This gnome, still opening his mouth in the same strange way, long continued to sing or shout." Tolstoy hated going to the theater to see an opera or ballet. He predicts art forms like opera or ballet could never and will never be appreciated and enjoyed by the common person.

Actually, on this point, he was off by a mile. Turns out, people who attend ballet nowadays can't get enough of productions like The Nutcracker. And talking about being off by a mile, Tolstoy judged Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as bad art since the work cannot be viewed as religious art nor does it unite people in one feeling; rather, he said, the fifth symphony is, "long, confused, artificial".

Goodness! Most everyday Joe work-a-day type people who are concert-goers would be thrilled if Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was on the program. What else is bad art? Tolstoy writes: "In painting we must similarly place in the class of bad art all the Church, patriotic, and exclusive pictures."

Well then, what does Tolstoy regard as good art? In a word, art that has three qualities: 1) clarity, 2) sincerity, and 3) individuality (as opposed to copying other art). And, in the author’s view, in order to be considered good art, the work must create authentic religious feelings and engender the brotherhood of man. As examples of good art, Tolstoy cites Dickens, Hugo, Dostoevsky and the painter Millet.

You might not agree with Tolstoy on every point, but that is no reason to pass over a careful study of his views. After all, he is one of the world's great writers and knew a thing or two about art.

So, an old guy walks into a theatre while a company rehearses an opera, and starts to form an idea about how much the art's world consumes people's lives, to such humiliating results, and he spends the next fifteen years writing about how bad false art is, while suggesting the true art is something akin to true Christianity. One key element that is missing is that people have as much passion for their art, and such passion may not be a bad thing. I was only sorta persuaded by his many arguments, but was mostly reading it to see Tolstoy tackle other big-name artists full on (as the backcover blurb suggested, Shakespeare was one of the main targets, but only briefly discussed); Wagner and Beethoven get a working over, in slightly-mocking discriptions of their greatest works. Dickens, thankfully, is spared, probably for his depictions of all walks of life, rather than the wealthy idle layabouts most artist pander to. Wonder what Tolstoy would have thought of movies, the eighth art, still in its infancy when he wrote his diatribe? On the one hand, they are just as elitist as any other form of art mentioned, yet they are much more accessible than the galleries and concert halls of 19th century. Suppose the fussy old man lived long enough to catch a Buster Keaton or an Sergei Eisenstein film would any of his opinions changed? And if it did, what would he think of today current Oscar winners or blockbusters - probably us slipping back in the bad habits he had so much to write about in this work of art criticism.

I agree with Tolstoy's basic thesis in terms of what art means and what it's purpose should be but in this day in age reading so much on art relating to Christianity seems a moot point

I think I'm pretty thoroughly a postmodernist. I think a world of many truths, and myriad art, is a more beautiful world. Tolstoy quite passionately disagrees. And even though art, and my view of it, is central to my identity, his piercing philosophy of art deeply shook me. A fantastic read! He goes hard against basically all of art, religion, and a bonus subject in the conclusion that was surprising to me, but well set up. Is there more philosophy this entertaining?!

N.B. Boy, does Tolstoy hate Wagner!

This 5 star rating is not an outright endorsement for everything that Tolstoy claims in this book; It’s more of a “damn, did this book make me think!”. For me, any attempt to define anything in absolute terms, let alone something as intangible and comprehensive as the whole of Art, will always fail. However, Tolstoy poses a lot of very well argued points that I will not soon forget in his book “What is Art?”.
One thing I definitely learned, Tolstoy would not have liked Stanley Kubrick. (FYI, that’s a joke ; )
I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in aesthetics, art or philosophy.

thanks for helping me with my ext 2 major tolstoy bae <3

کتاب «هنر چیست؟» تولستوی یکی از بارزترین و برجسته ترین کتاب ها در حوزۀ شناخت هنر و نقد ادبی و جریان شناسی است. نویسنده در این کتاب علاوه بر بررسی هنر و ادبیات عصر خود، پیش بینی های نیز از هنر اعصار بعد از خود دارد. حقیقتی که می تواند در حین خوانش این کتاب مخاطب را آزار دهد، این است که نویسنده سعی در برجسته سازی و اتخاذ دیدگاه «نقد اخلاقی» در بررسی هنر و انواع ژانرهای آن دارد. دیدگاهی که جزو اولین دیدگاه های نقد هنر و ادبیات شناخته می شود و سابقۀ آن به افلاطون می رسد. چنین دیدگاهی هر چند درطول تاریخ حضور همیشگی داشته اما با ورود به دوران رمانتیسیسم و ما بعدِ آن، کمرنگ تر شده و در واقع به یک رویکرد کلاسیک و باستانی تبدیل شده است.
بسیاری از آثار برجستۀ ادبیات جهان را، اگر قرار بر این باشد که با این دیدگاه بررسی نماییم، مفید نبودن آن ها برای زندگی انسان، باعث مردود شدن این آثار خواهد شد، به همین خاطر تولستوی به شخصیت هایی چون بودلر و مالارمه و نوازنده های شهیری چون بتهون و واگنر و برامس و اشتراوس حمله می کند و در کل سمفونی و اپرا و نمایش و تئاتر جهان امروز را غیر مفید و غرض ورزانه می داند.

در اواخر کتاب، می توان بیزاری نویسنده را از جریان های حاضر در عصر خود حدس زد، و آرزوهایی که به شکل ترسیم نوعی اوتوپیای ادبی- هنری در ذهن وی شکل گرفته را مطالعه نمود.
با وجود همۀ این یکسو نگری ها، تولستوی کاشف بلبشو و آشفتگی مبانی و موازین هنری امروز نیز هست:

«سه موردی که بیان شد، یعنی «حرفه ای بودن هنرمندان و نقد هنری و مدارس هنری» این نتیجه را به بار آورده است که اکثریت افراد عصر ما مطلقاً از درک هنر عاجزند و ناهنجارترین محصولات هنر تقلبی را به جای هنر واقعی می پذیرند.» ص 140

تولستوی در نهایت نظریات وخود، اصلی ترین ویژگی هنر ناب و زیبا و مفید را در قابلیت تسری یافتن از هنرمند به مخاطب و خواننده و رسیدن به حسی مشترک می داند:

«کار هنر این است: آنچه را ممکن است در قالب استدلال و تعقل، نامفهوم و دور از دسترس باقی بماند، مفهوم سازد و در دسترس همۀ مردم قرار دهد. معمولاً، وقتی انسان تأثری را که حقیقتاً هنری است می گیرد، تصور می کند این حالت را قبلاً در خود احساس کرده، اما از بیان آن عاجز بوده است.» ص 115

«اگر انسانی این احساس را تجربه کند، حالت سازندۀ اثر بدو سرایت نماید، و اختلاط و اتحاد خود را با انسان های دیگر احساس کند، موضوعی که این حال را در او به وجود آورده هنر است. اگر این سرایت وجود نداشته باشد و با سازندۀ اثر و آنها که اثر را درک می کنند، اختلاطی دست ندهد، هنری وجود ندارد. مهم تر از این، نه تنها مسری بودن، علامت مشخص هنر است، بلکه میزان سرایت، تنها معیار ارزش هنر است.» ص 167

97/10/03

this review is basically just me ranting about nothing in particular. don’t expect much detail since i just wrote this to document my thoughts and opinions.

Tolstoy speaks of perversion in art. But the real perversion lies within the attempt to pass a subjective opinion as objective truth. The critics who praise Wagner, and the people who imitate those impressions without question, are just as bad as those who outright deny his works. Essentially, Tolstoy is speaking of subjective matters in an essay attempting to define the boundaries of art as a whole. He argues that true art is the medium through which an artist expresses their feelings, and any work that doesn’t fit this category isn’t real art.

However, art acts as both a medium and a barrier, separating the artist from the observer. The observer doesn’t exactly feel the feelings of the artist, but rather re-experiences his own feelings as reflected by the art, kind of like a mirror. This is further suggested by Tolstoy when he describes the inability of people with completely different lifestyles (e.g., the lower class and the upper class) to understand each other’s art. Thus, when Tolstoy condemns a work for being counterfeit, he speaks from a limited perspective where the intentions of the artist aren’t truly known, effectively invalidating his claim.

Chapter 26 talks about the quality of art in a religious context, which is absolutely pointless in relation to his original argument. In this section, he’s essentially discussing the consequences of art, not art itself, and it doesn’t serve his original thesis whatsoever. It’s especially aggravating since he had previously denied morality as having anything to do with art, yet proceeded to spend nearly twenty pages yapping about morality. I basically skipped this section after skimming it for a short while—not my proudest moment, but whatever.

There are a lot of points Tolstoy makes that I do agree with, however, and I find his general philosophy much more compelling than the ones he’s arguing against.

Update (I’m writing this review as I read):

There’s some really good bits near the end. A lot of what he’s saying is incredibly relevant today, especially with the rise in modern-day consumerism. It’s still a little preachy, but I’m okay with it.

“Even now, every true artist learns not at school, but from life.”

“No situation is more harmful for artistic productivity than the situation of complete security and luxury in which artists usually live in our society.”

“The artist of the future will not even understand how it is possible for an artist, whose joy consists in the widest dissemination of his works, to give these works only in exchange for a certain payment.” (this quote fucks)

Update:

I’m nearly done with the conclusion, but I’m really tired so I’ll just say it’s preachy, thought-provoking, hilariously irrelevant, and move on.

“We rejoice and feel proud that our science makes it possible for us to exploit the energy or a waterfall and make this power work in factories, or that we have pierced tunnels through mountains, and so on. But the trouble is that we make this power of the waterfall work not for the benefit of the people, but for the enriching of capitalists, who produce objects of luxury or tools for destroying human beings.”

“Art is not pleasure, consolation, or amusement; art is a great thing.”

Conclusion:

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested or passionate about art. You probably wont agree with a lot of what he says, and agree heavily with half the other shit, but that just requires you to form your own opinions, which can be great fun. 4 stars out of 5.

(Also, reading Tolstoy absolutely shitting on Wagner’s work is hilarious, love it)

+ first actual review, thank you for reading

یکی از تاثیرگذارترین کتاب‌هایی که خوندم. نه این که داده‌های به دردبخورش برام زیاد بود، نه. چون ایده‌ی اصلی تولستوی، دوست داشتن هنری بود که برای درکش نیاز به آموزش نداری.
مثلا تولستوی تو این کتاب حس منفی‌ای به تابلوی نقاشی سبک خاصی که برای فهمیدنش باید آموزش دیده باشی و نمادها رو بشناسی داشت.
اگه یادم باشه یکی از مثال‌هاش، موزیک غمگین یا شادی مثلا چینی هست که بدون فهمیدن معنای کلمه‌ها می‌تونی حسش رو دریافت کنی.
این کتاب بهم یاد داد با احساسم راحت باشم و هنری رو پیگیر باشم که دوست دارم، نه هنری که به نظر باکلاس میاد. بهم یاد داد درگیر ضایع بودن و بی‌کلاس بودن و اینا نباشم. و البته بتونم با اسم تولستوی(: از این ایده‌ام دفاع کنم.

An interesting and well done work. The idea of art as the communication of emotion from a source to an audience is potent. He focuses on writing, poetry, painting, music, and theatre but I believe that his ideas can apply to a broader suite of creative acts; cooking, dance, even athletics to a degree. Any sufficiently deep activity or creation as to allow emotional expression.

Unfortunately it seems like Tolstoy misses the simple fact that accessibility for the art he talks about was unavailable for most of the population up until recent history. Literacy and access to reading material often being withheld from the masses. Churches represented the largest exposure to art in the European world for a long time. He at one point idolizes the simplicity of “peasant” songs and stories, but in doing so, clearly shows the rift in his worldview.

A philosophical treatise published in 1897, here Tolstoy explores the nature, purpose, and significance of art. He delves into defining true art and its role in society, aiming to distinguish between what he considers "good" and "bad" art.

In What Is Art? Tolstoy argues that genuine art serves a moral purpose, emphasizing the importance of art's ability to convey authentic emotions and moral truths. Tolstoy's emphasis on moral and didactic aspects of art limits its scope and overlooks the complexities and diversity of artistic expression. He criticises elitist or inaccessible art that prioritizes technical skill or aesthetics over its ability to genuinely connect with and uplift the masses- arguably restricting artistic freedom and diversity.

Tolstoy's work remains influential due to its thought-provoking examination of art's purpose and social function. He challenges traditional views on aesthetics, asserting that genuine art should not only evoke emotions but also inspire moral growth and empathy within society. Tolstoy's emphasis on the moral responsibility of artists and their duty to create art for the common good continues to spark debates on the nature of art and its role in society.

One notable figure who expressed admiration for Tolstoy's views was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy's philosophy of non-violence and simple living and was known to appreciate Tolstoy's thoughts on art and its moral significance.

Leo Tolstoy, renowned for his novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina, had a profound impact on literature and philosophy. His experiences, particularly his spiritual and moral transformation later in life, greatly influenced the writing of What Is Art?. Tolstoy's disillusionment with the aristocratic circles and societal norms of his time led him to explore deeper philosophical questions about human existence, morality, and the purpose of life. These personal reflections on morality and the human condition deeply influenced his thoughts on art and its significance in society.