What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy (english readers .txt) đ
Description
What Is Art? is an 1897 philosophical treatise by Leo Tolstoy that lays out his philosophy of aesthetics. Rejecting notions of aesthetics that center around beauty, Tolstoy instead posits that art is defined by its role in transmitting feelings between human beings. Furthermore, he argues that the quality of art is not assessed by the pleasure it gives, but whether the feelings the art evokes align with the meaning of life revealed by a given societyâs religious perception. In line with his spiritual views set out in The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Tolstoy argues that the proper purpose of art is to transmit feelings of human unity and âto set up, in place of the existing reign of force, that kingdom of God, i.e. of love, which we all recognize to be the highest aim of human life.â
Tolstoy makes a number of unconventional aesthetic judgments in the course of the book, dismissing such works as Wagnerâs operas, Romeo and Juliet, and his own past works like War and Peace and Anna Karenina as âbad art.â In turn, he praises such works as Dickensâ A Christmas Carol and Hugoâs Les MisĂ©rables as âexamples of the highest art, flowing from the love of God and the love of man.â
Read free book «What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy (english readers .txt) đ» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: Leo Tolstoy
Read book online «What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy (english readers .txt) đ». Author - Leo Tolstoy
This, for example, is a sonnet by MallarmĂ©:â â
A la nue accablante tu
Basse de basalte et de laves
A mĂȘme les Ă©chos esclaves
Par une trompe sans vertu.
Quel sépulcral naufrage (tu
Le soir, Ă©cume, mais y baves)
SuprĂȘme une entre les Ă©paves
Abolit le mĂąt dĂ©vĂȘtu.
Ou cela que furibond faute
De quelque perdition haute
Tout lâabĂźme vain Ă©ployĂ©
Dans le si blanc cheveu qui traĂźne
Avarement aura noyé
Le flanc enfant dâune sirĂšne.78
This poem is not exceptional in its incomprehensibility. I have read several poems by MallarmĂ©, and they also had no meaning whatever. I give a sample of his prose in Appendix I. There is a whole volume of this prose, called âDivagations.â It is impossible to understand any of it. And that is evidently what the author intended.
And here is a song by Maeterlinck, another celebrated author of today:â â
Quand il est sorti,
(Jâentendis la porte)
Quand il est sorti
Elle avait souriâ ââ âŠ
Mais quand il entra
(Jâentendis la lampe)
Mais quand il entra
Une autre Ă©tait lĂ â ââ âŠ
Et jâai vu la mort,
(Jâentendis son Ăąme)
Et jâai vu la mort
Qui lâattend encoreâ ââ âŠ
On est venu dire,
(Mon enfant jâai peur)
On est venu dire
Quâil allait partirâ ââ âŠ
Ma lampe allumée,
(Mon enfant jâai peur)
Ma lampe allumée
Me suis approchĂ©eâ ââ âŠ
A la premiĂšre porte,
(Mon enfant jâai peur)
A la premiĂšre porte,
La flamme a tremblĂ©â ââ âŠ
A la seconde porte,
(Mon enfant jâai peur)
A la seconde porte,
La flamme a parlĂ©â ââ âŠ
A la troisiĂšme porte,
(Mon enfant jâai peur)
A la troisiĂšme porte,
La lumiĂšre est morteâ ââ âŠ
Et sâil revenait un jour
Que faut-il lui dire?
Dites-lui quâon lâattendit
JusquâĂ sâen mourirâ ââ âŠ
Et sâil demande oĂč vous ĂȘtes
Que faut-il répondre?
Donnez-lui mon anneau dâor
Sans rien lui rĂ©pondreâ ââ âŠ
Et sâil mâinterroge alors
Sur la derniĂšre heure?
Dites lui que fai souri
De peur quâil ne pleureâ ââ âŠ
Et sâil mâinterroge encore
Sans me reconnaĂźtre?
Parlez-lui comme une sĆur,
Il souffre peut-ĂȘtreâ ââ âŠ
Et sâil veut savoir pourquoi
La salle est déserte?
Montrez lui la lampe Ă©teinte
Et la porte ouverteâ ââ âŠ79
Who went out? Who came in? Who is speaking? Who died?
I beg the reader to be at the pains of reading through the samples I cite in Appendix II of the celebrated and esteemed young poetsâ âGriffin, Verhaeren, MorĂ©as, and Montesquiou. It is important to do so in order to form a clear conception of the present position of art, and not to suppose, as many do, that Decadentism is an accidental and transitory phenomenon. To avoid the reproach of having selected the worst verses, I have copied out of each volume the poem which happened to stand on page 28.
All the other productions of these poets are equally unintelligible, or can only be understood with great difficulty, and then not fully. All the productions of those hundreds of poets, of whom I have named a few, are the same in kind. And among the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Italians, and us Russians, similar verses are printed. And such productions are printed and made up into book form, if not by the million, then by the hundred thousand (some of these works sell in tens of thousands). For typesetting, paging, printing, and binding these books, millions and millions of working days are spentâ ânot less, I think, than went to build the great pyramid. And this is not all. The same is going on in all the other arts: millions and millions of working days are being spent on the production of equally incomprehensible works in painting, in music, and in the drama.
Painting not only does not lag behind poetry in this matter, but rather outstrips it. Here is an extract from the diary of an amateur of art, written when visiting the Paris exhibitions in 1894:â â
âI was today at three exhibitions: the Symbolistsâ, the Impressionistsâ, and the Neo-Impressionistsâ. I looked at the pictures conscientiously and carefully, but again felt the same stupefaction and ultimate indignation. The first exhibition, that of Camille Pissarro, was comparatively the most comprehensible, though the pictures were out of drawing, had no subject, and the colourings were most improbable. The drawing was so indefinite that you were sometimes unable to make out which way an arm or a head was turned. The subject was generally, âeffetsââ âEffet de brouillard, Effet du soir, Soleil couchant. There were some pictures with figures, but without subjects.
âIn the colouring, bright blue and bright green predominated. And each picture had its special colour, with which the whole picture was, as it were, splashed. For instance in A Girl Guarding Geese the special colour is vert de gris, and dots of it were splashed about everywhere: on the face, the hair, the hands, and the clothes. In the same galleryâ ââDurand Ruelââ âwere other pictures, by Puvis de Chavannes, Manet, Monet, Renoir, Sisleyâ âwho are all Impressionists. One of them, whose name I could not make outâ âit was something like Redonâ âhad painted a blue face in profile. On the whole face there is only this blue tone, with white-of-lead. Pissarro has a watercolour all done in dots. In the foreground is a cow entirely painted with various-coloured dots. The general colour cannot be distinguished, however much one stands back from, or draws near to, the picture. From there I went to see the Symbolists. I looked at them long without asking anyone for an explanation, trying to guess the meaning; but it is beyond human comprehension. One of the first things to catch my eye was a wooden haut-relief, wretchedly executed, representing a woman (naked) who with both hands is squeezing from her two breasts streams of blood. The blood flows down, becoming lilac in colour. Her hair first descends and then rises again and turns into trees. The figure is all coloured yellow, and the hair is brown.
âNextâ âa picture: a yellow sea, on which swims something which is neither a ship nor a heart;
Comments (0)