Rand fits in with that description quite well also.Quote:
Originally Posted by olichka
Printable View
Rand fits in with that description quite well also.Quote:
Originally Posted by olichka
A gap exists in your logic.
As opposed to the huge gaping hole left by such a comment as this? So you have undoubtedly read enough of Tolstoy... including his critical essays... among the 100 or so books you admit to having read... in order to make an assessment of where I'm wrong about his critical opinions?
You overtly downplay the relevance of the human emotion. The act of being content with a work, feeling happy with it, being able to empathize with its characters, laughing with them, venting at them and escaping into their world(s) all comprise a cut from the fabric of our emotions. Without emotion there is no enjoyment.
Nearly all art conveys emotions... or rather should I say all art is capable of stirring emotions in the audience. In reality, it is the audience that brings the emotions to a work of art. What is tragic or heart-breaking to you, I may find comic and cliche-ridden. The notion that the central aim of art is "self expression"... the expression of emotions... is a Romantic notion often held firmly by adolescents. The teen-age girl's diary in which she gushes on about the boys she likes is surely "self-expressive"... laden with emotion. The baby crying because he is hungry is "self-expressive"... but I doubt either achieve the level of great art.
Tolstoy argues that the measure of art is how well it conveys emotions... and the more universally accessible the greater the art. But this is nonsense. We have probably all seen films in which the grand climax is reached... where the underdog finally triumphs... accompanied by the soaring strings of lush Neo-Romantic orchestral music... and almost no-one fails to be moved... in spite of the cliches. Again, accessibility is no measure of artistic merit. But Tolstoy adamantly rejects this idea because he is looking at art through a socio-political lens. He feels that those works of art that demand a certain degree of background information... or which challenge the audience... are inherently "elitist"... and "elitism" is bad.
Then we have the inconsistency in Tolstoy's theories in the sense that he can reject art (Beethoven and Wagner) that is powerfully "expressive" of emotions... and has reached a large (universal?) audience when that art conveys emotions/ideas that Tolstoy is uncomfortable with or feels are inappropriate to art.
You appear to claim that the emotions felt by a broad readership correlate to the quality of the work.
That was Tolstoy's aim. In spite of having been born into a privileged aristocracy, he wished to model himself as a Christ-like man of the common people. Historically, most art was the domain of the "elite"... a wealthy and educated elite. This began to change in the 19th and 20th centuries with increased literacy, access to the arts through the means of mechanical reproduction, and increased education of the larger populace. Even so the percentage of the population as a whole who put forth a great deal of effort in the appreciation, promotion, creation, and preservation of the arts is still a limited number... an "elite" by choice or elective affinity. The notion that an artist "should" strive to communicate with the largest possible audience (which essentially translates to the lowest common denominator) or that a "universal art" can exist is naive at best.
All of this says nothing of Tolstoy the writer. Undoubtedly, his novels and short stories place him in the company of an "elite" that he would deny: Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, Milton, Goethe, and a few others.
Rand fits in with that description quite well also.
:smilielol5:
One thing that is interesting in this thread is the focus upon the novel. Who are the great Russian poets? There are a number... but can they rival the French or British? What of non-fiction (Montaigne, Gibbons, Borges, Rousseau, Johnson, Goethe, etc...). What of theater? Yes, we have Checkov... but any other major players? Arguments concerning the "greatest" national body of literature must consider all of these elements.
Not a 19th century writer, but she's Russian, wrote solely about human nature, works are still well known in the West, and her works have been adapted to many other formats of art including film and video games.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Please elaborate if you find this inaccurate.
I'm questioning the term "excellent" as applied to Rand.
Ah. What is your definition of excellent?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Well mine wouldn't include Rand (assuming you mean Ayn Rand?).Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
As for St. Lukes' comment on genre, well that is true, but what of other genres besides novels etc. that do not exist in other traditions. For instance, what we call Chinese "novels" are not exactly novels in the Western sense, in that they combine verse and fiction (Jin Ping Mei), or combine oral accounts with folk legends (Romance of the 3 kingdoms), or communal exercises (Japanese Tanka as a product of social sphere), or any other number of diverging strands in tradition.
Either way, this whole idea is so Western-focused that it is almost ridiculous. To even suggest that a country (which is a new invention mind you) can produce the "greatest" of anything is absurd. Can we even call Goethe a German anyway? what of Aristotle, should we call him Egyptian? See how absurd this is?
Then, we can narrow this - which language has the best literature. This is a valid question, and the one we should be exploring, as it basically removes the artificial borders that preoccupy post 1800 literature.
Yes, Ayn.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Language is an improvement over geography, but it is still senseless and in fact a tad egotistical to try and say one language's expression was superior to all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I think stluke is mischaracterizing Tolstoy’s theories about art. It’s been years since I read “What is Art” – and if I can find my copy, I’ll look at it again. However, Tolstoy’s theory (as I remember it) is more complicated than “that the measure of art is how well it conveys emotions.” The film endings in which stirring music combines with trite plot-lines to yank an emotional response from the audience are precisely what Tolstoy would deplore – indeed, they are similar to what he deplored in Shakespeare and Beethoven.
Neither does Tolstoy say that “elitist” art is bad art. Instead, he (reasonably) asserts that although art which is accessible to only those with specialized education can be good art, it cannot rise to the very top artistic level of ‘universal’ art. (I remember Tolstoy offering the story of Joseph and his Brothers as one example of universal art.)
Tolstoy particularly rejects as “false art” derivative art in which the artist, instead of “infecting” the audience with original emotions that have affected the artist, infects the audience with emotions “derived” only from viewing other works of art.
I’ll look for my copy of the book this evening, and (if I find it) report back in more detail.
Language is an improvement over geography, but it is still senseless and in fact a tad egotistical to try and say one language's expression was superior to all others.
How is it "egotistical"? Perhaps if one were to blindly champion the achievements of one's own language/nation. I can pretty much say with a near absolute degree of certainty that the greatest art produced in Western culture from 1300-1550 was that of the Italians and the greatest body of music produced in the West from 1650-1930 was that of the Germanic-Austrian tradition. Limiting myself again to Western culture, I'd have to go with the English language as having produced the greatest body of literature. We are speaking here of the literature of Great Britain, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc... Within Western culture what other language could compete?
That is the exact fashion I meant as far as egotistical. I'm not saying you are; I'm saying having a discussion about the greatest language to produce literature would inevitably produce biases as people simply can't read every language, and if they check out a translated version, it often-times will not hold the same weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I guess that becomes a discussion about human nature, whether or not people will resort to saying "well i only have read british literature but it is clearly the greatest," when there has been an enormously influential body of work from India, for example.
The film endings in which stirring music combines with trite plot-lines to yank an emotional response from the audience are precisely what Tolstoy would deplore – indeed, they are similar to what he deplored in Shakespeare and Beethoven.
Let's face it. Tolstoy was one of the worst critics of art ever. Among those he disliked were all of the Greek playwrights, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespeare, Goethe, Zola, Ibsen, Beethoven, and Wagner. It is difficult to afford Tolstoy's criticism any serious consideration when he is so consistently wrong.
Tolstoy declares, in What is Art that "art is the transmission to others of a special feeling experienced by the artist."
There have been other critics who have been notoriously wrong. Johnson dismissed Lawrence Sterne and Nabokov famously wrote off Dostoevsky... but these were but single failings among a body of criticism that was far more often accurate than not. And then there were the infamous rants of Mark Twain... but then again Twain was usually aiming toward satire. Tolstoy was deadly serious when he writes of Beethoven:
“…not only do I not see how the feelings transmitted by this work could unite people not specially trained to submit themselves to its complex hypnotism, but I am unable to imagine to myself a crowd of normal people who could understand anything of this long, confused, and artificial production, except short snatches which are lost in a sea of what is incomprehensible. And therefore, whether I like it or not, I am compelled to conclude that this work belongs to the rank of bad art.”
Tolstoy's criticism has nothing to do with trite plot twists and saccharine efforts at stirring the emotions... which are rare to non-existent in either Shakespeare of Beethoven. They have far more to do with the rants of a grumpy old fart who envisioned himself as a Christ-like messiah infuriated by the fame and achievements of others.
I couldn’t disagree more. Very few books of criticism are as much fun to read as “What is Art”. A critic should be judged on whether his critiques are stimulating, enjoyable, and illuminating. To call Tolstoy “one of the worst critics of art ever” is, I think, to completely misunderstand what good criticism comprises. However much most of us may disagree with Tolstoy’s theory of art, or his ratings of Dante, Beethoven, Shakespeare, the Greek playwrights, Michaelangelo, and Raphael, “What is Art” is a classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
If you read the entire book (I looked through it quickly again last night) you’ll see that Tolstoy does complain about trite plot twists and saccharine efforts at stirring the emotions. He particularly dislikes derivative art – art that either copies the techniques of other works (he despises art schools), or art that infects others with inauthentic emotions (for example emotions that derive from other art).
I’ll agree that Tolstoy was a crotchety old man (he wrote “What is Art” in 1896, I think, when he was pushing 70 years of age. He may or may not have been “infuriated by the fame… of others.” However, his motives or psychological profile are irrelevant to the quality of his criticism. Tolstoy is guilty (like stluke) of the “personal heresy”. He thinks that how the work of art gets done is important to the quality of the work – and he goes overboard in descrying works of art because of the motives and tactics of the artists rather than because of the quality of the work itself. He goes on about how Beethoven’s later work suffers from the composer’s deafness (he actually likes some early Beethoven).
As seen in the Beethoven passage stluke quotes above, Tolstoy compares one form of “false art” with hypnosis. It is, he thinks, a parlor trick (perhaps a very well done parlor trick) rather than true art. He also thinks that universal art that creates holy feelings is superior to more prosaic and mundane art. (I’m not describing this exactly right, Tolstoy’s religious feelings were complicated – he believed in God as an abstraction, not as a personal deity, and he denied the divinity of Jesus, although he considered himself a Christian.)
However, stluke is, like Tolstoy, guilty of the personal heresy. Whether Tolstoy was jealous, or a “grumpy old fart”, is irrelevant to the quality of “What is Art”. Plenty of grumpy old farts are great writers, and Tolstoy was one of them. In addition, such universally acclaimed critics as George B. Shaw shared Tolstoy’s opinion of Shakespeare. Surely the extent to which a critic’s taste coincides with our own is of little relevance to the quality of his critiques.
I think Tolstoy’s theory of the nature and purpose of art is incorrect (even preposterous) – but it is never dull. I think Tolstoy’s judgments about the quality of other artists are wrong – but they are always fascinating. Stluke has stated that he doesn’t like Joyce. Does the fact that he dislikes the writer generally considered the greatest English novelist of the 20th century make him “one of the worst critics of art ever.” I don’t think so. We may look for a newspaper movie reviewer who shares our tastes, but surely a critic should be expected to offer us something more stimulating. Tolstoy does.
He dislike Dante for a dumb reason, but then it is was a fashion to dislike Dante.
Now, his ideas (hardly a theory, Tolstoy is preaching, not analysing) of art are hardly "wrong", his notion of canon formation is wrong. But What is Art is not that influential, Tolstoy is hardly more relevant in art treatises than Schiller or Baudelaire, to mention two writers that also went on Aesthetics). Tolstoy is basically anti-romantic, overall, he has a great notion of language, he spotted Tchekhov talent quite well and Dostoievisky flaws too. But Tolstoy is just doing the same mistake many do, start defining art, propose an universal definition but when he applies, it is goes to his personal taste or more, what he would do as an artist.