Printable View
I agree, jCamilo. His critiques of some of the philosophers then in fashion (most of whom I'd never heard of) seem, to me, a philosophical novice, persuasive. However, his own "universal definitions" are no better. Nonetheless, I'll defend his ability as a critic -- because the first (and perhaps only) responsibility of a good critic is to write critiques that are entertaining, enlightening, enthralling, and energizing. Despite its weaknesses, "What is Art" qualifies.
So we are in agreement that good criticism lies not in it's truth, but in it's ability to stimulate discussion (which therein could lead us in the direction of truth)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
What makes "What is Art?" a classic? It is by and large an irrelevant rant not taken seriously by anyone. I don't see very many individuals quoting Tolstoy as critic as they do any number of other writers.
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).
But it seems he is unable to define what trite plot twists and saccharine efforts at stirring the emotions are. Essentially it comes down to "What I don't like is bad."
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.
They are relevant when the criticism is continually off-base and devoid of any real logic.
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.
That's a funny criticism... considering that I fall clearly withing the Art pour l'Art/Formalism camp in which the only measure of art is the art work itself.
He goes on about how Beethoven's later work suffers from the composer’s deafness (he actually likes some early Beethoven).
And focusing solely upon his critical comments, almost anyone knowledgeable of classical music would tear Tolstoy's comments to shreds. Beethoven's late works, rather than suffering as a result of his increasing deafness, rise to an ever more profound and innovative level. His late piano sonatas, late quartets, and 9th symphony (among other works) are recognized as towering works within the whole of classical music... pushing the form toward Romanticism.
But what are the insightful criticisms that Tolstoy offers?
"…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.”
Where exactly are the critical analysis of the 9th Symphony as a work of music? Tolstoy personally finds the work incomprehensible and confused and thus cannot fathom how others might be of a different opinion.
And he applies similar critiques to the music of Wagner:
“It is the same when listening to an opera of Wagner’s. Sit in the dark for four days in company with people who are not quite normal, and, through the auditory nerves, subject your brain to the strongest action of the sounds best adapted to excite it, and you will no doubt be reduced to an abnormal condition and be enchanted by absurdities.
Again, rather than offering any real criticism he dismisses those whose opinions may differ as "not quite normal"... "enchanted by absurdities."
Later, he again attacks the opinions of the audience... undoubtedly morons, unlike the enlightened Tolstoy... rather than the artwork in question:
“…around me I saw a crowd of three thousand people, who not only patiently witnessed all this absurd nonsense, but even considered it their duty to be delighted with it.”
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.)
And this is criticism that should be taken seriously?
I think Tolstoy’s theory of the nature and purpose of art is incorrect (even preposterous) – but it is never dull.
One might say the same of the political analysis of Rush Limbaugh. The major weakness, again, that I see is that restated by JCamilo... and that is Tolstoy's attempt to define what art is or should be... and then dismiss all that doesn't meet his definition. To merely make the attempt to define Art is a fool's game... but Tolstoy isn't even consistent here. There are artists who meet his professed ideals as to what Art should be who he still dismisses... solely because he doesn't like them.
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.
It seems to me that there is an essential difference between stating "I don't particularly like Artist X," and "I don't particularly like Artist X, thus his work must be bad art and all those whose opinions differ must be fools." I have stated I don't particularly like Joyce... but I haven't suggested that Joyce sucks or that all those who like Joyce are idiots.
When I read criticism, what's most important to me is that the critic has meaningful insights and makes strong, coherent arguments. Whether he is right or not is secondary. But if he is wrong most of the time, that would indeed cast a shadow over his criticisms.
What!?! Sanskrit, English and French belong to entirely separate branches of Indo-European. Their only relation is through their common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
But to borrow an idea from Northrop Frye, easily one of the biggest and most important critics of English literature this last century, it is generally the lowest form of criticism that focuses on evaluation and judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by lichtrausch
The view of criticism should not be a two thumbs up or a thumbs down, but merely to shed light on particular ideas. We don't really need the thumbs up, especially for already canonical authors who neither benefit from more thumbs up, or are hurt by a thumbs down.
I think even Frye said what he thougth good or bad, but his writtings were not simple "this is bad or good". A critic that tries to be on the fence all time will not have the same aura of true... you know there is something negative and he keeps walking in circles to avoid mentioning it? And of course, a critic that for some reason keep writing about what he does not like is just a vulture. Good literature must be the muse of all critic.
Anyways, I think provoking discussion is way too easy. Anyone can. And yes, many criticism have status as good because the critic was a good writer himself. Good writers are persuassive, they will look as true, even because you need to be way lost to be "wrong", as you are basically setting the conditions for truth for the particular universe of crticism you are following. Basically, criticism also need some suspension of disbelief.
Frye's lectures according to my professors, who for the most part were trained by him directly or worked with him, generally were the same as his writings. Though he passes a sort of critical judgment he does not ever seem to two thumbs up or whatever books. In truth, when finding out how things work, it is hard not to say if they are effective or not. But for the most part, his career was focused not on evaluation, as his subject matter was an already established canon. There is no need for a critical judgment of the Bible, or of Shakespeare, or whatever.
Besides which, his writings on Canadian literature are strangely nonjudgmental, in that he is not critically dismissive of any number of mediocre works.
Yes, if he was a member here, he would not be not posting in the thread "Overated/underated books'" or "Worst books of all time", etc, but i think it is in the end pretty obvious to see what books he liked.
Tolstoy’s forceful, clearly stated opinions make for good reading. “What is Art” is still in print – of how many other works of 19th century criticism can this be said? Perhaps “classic” is slightly overstated – but only slightly. As for “anyone knowledgeable of classical music… tear(ing) Tosltoy’s comments to shreds,” that might be easier today, since Leo has been dead for 100+ years. However, his rhetorical talents were such that the “tearing to shreds” might be dangerous if he were still alive to defend himself. Also, while Tolstoy’s critique of Beethoven amounts to a couple of paragraphs of tangential opinion (he is using Beethoven to exemplify the application of his theories, rather than arguing how those theories apply to Beethoven), he does criticize Wagner over the course of several pages. Criticizing Tolstoy for failing to successfully ARGUE that Beethoven was mediocre is silly, because Tolstoy never attempts that argument. He is merely using Beethoven as an example.
If “the only measure of art is the art itself”, then surely it is irrelevant to the quality of Tolstoy’s critique whether Tolstoy was jealous of the artistic success of others, or whether he was a “grumpy old fart.” I wonder why you brought it up?
As far as “attacking the audience”, Tolstoy specifically says that as a member of the elite, he was particularly susceptible to the hypnotic charms of some forms of “false art”. Far from differentiating himself, he places himself within the group whose reaction he is criticizing.
Is defining “art” “a fool’s game”? If it is, a great many philosophers, from Plato on, have played the fool.
Finally, Tolstoy’s opinion of Beethoven led to “The Kreutzer Sonata”, one of the best (long) short stories ever written. Those of us who have read it can only be grateful for Tolstoy’s animosity toward the composer.
We can criticize Tolstoy for falling to argue about Beethoveen because he pretends to be doing a logical analyses. He is doing nothing of sort. But the work is in print, because it is very valuable to understand Tolstoy, one of the major authors of our story. His opinions on Dante, Shakespeare, etc. say little of them but they talk loads about himself. The critic - you said it was a old man's work - shows much of how Tolstoy lived between an idealism (despite his anti-romanticism) and a reality, the count vs.the man, as Tolstoy also denies his own earlier (and best work). You may quote Tolstoy, simple because some ideas he repeats about what is art works for intrduction, but it is hardly considered something serious.
Again, I recall a letter - between Gorki and Chekhov, not sure who to who - where they describe the reaction of Tolstoy to the early Dostoievisky fanboys. Tolstoy is aghast with Dostoievisky careless language, etc. They say the old Count was back. Then Tolstoy softens and talks with some admiration of how Dostoievisky was "Human" or "accessible". The idea was that Tolstoy was able of sharp criticism, had the sensibility for it, but in the old age he just didn't consider it important anymore. What is Art is a product of this period, it is preaching, tolstoy trying to find a balance about the aceticism of his old age and the great writers of young times. What is art is valuable work of Tolstoy about Tolstoy, not about art itself. Not a bad reading at all, but just it.
Tolstoy’s forceful, clearly stated opinions make for good reading. “What is Art” is still in print – of how many other works of 19th century criticism can this be said?
Come on. The literary criticism of nearly any important writer is likely still in print. On my own shelves I can find the critical writings of Baudelaire, Gautier, Zola, Pater, Coleridge, Emerson, Johnson, T.S. Eliot, Octavio Paz, J.L. Borges, Ezra Pound, Victor Hugo, Goethe, Schiller, Edgar Allen Poe, G.B. Shaw, Ruskin, Hazlitt, Stevenson, Novalis, William Morris, etc... AS JCamilo has suggested, Tolstoy's critical essays are important primarily in gaining a full understanding of Tolstoy. They have little relevance upon critical thought... far less than some works by writers such as Wilde, Pater, and Gautier... who are admittedly far less important writers than old Leo.
The Kreuzer Sonata is indeed a brilliant story... rooted in Tolstoy's animosity toward Beethoven. But is it at all likable? Does it reveal a side of Tolstoy that is at all likable or suggests a thinker worthy of serious consideration? Pozdnyshev is in many ways a stand in for old Tolstoy himself: a prudish, unlikable man who dismisses the whole or eroticism... sexuality... and love as "animal excess" and "swinishness". The story can be seen as an argument for sexual abstinence with Pozdnyshev portraying marriage and love and love-making as part of a "swinish life" that is only of value in the production of children. He rails against Beethoven's "Kreuzer Sonata" for its ability to inspire intense human emotions which he feels are inappropriate... animalistic. In an epilogue to "The Kreuzer Sonata" Tolstoy further promotes the idea that carnal love, infatuation, attraction, and sexuality are detrimental to humanities "higher" goals... and he goes on to write further articles/essays in defense of abstinence.
Again, I can appreciate Tolstoy the writer for his great novels and tales... but Tolstoy the literary... and social critic leaves much to be desired.
I'll grant that one of the fun things about "What is Art" is figuring out how it fits with the Great Man's personality as an artist and as a prophet. Wouldn't it be cool if Shakespeare and Beethoven had written their own treatises on the subject? Also, I agree that "What is Art" is primarily a work of philosophy, not a critique. I don't think philosophers take it seriously, although very few of them can write anything as interesting, accessible or enjoyable to read. Tolstoy does attempt to make a logical argument -- but I disagree with you that Beethoven is essential to his argument. He is merely using Beethoven as an example of what he means. His references to Beethoven are enjoyable because they help us to figure out where Tolstoy was coming from in "The Kreutzer Sonata".
I disagree that "Tolstoy pretends to be doing logical analyses". Tolstoy IS doing logical analyses. His premises may be bizarre, but there's nothing wrong with his logic, and his reasons for disapproving of Beethoven, Shakespeare, et. al. are consistent, however much we may disagree with the premises upon which they are based. Also, although it is true that Tolstoy probably never equalled his seminal novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877), he continued to write excellent (even great) fiction. "The Kreutzer Sonata" was published in 1889, "Master and Man" in 1895, and the great novella (so timely today) "Hadji Murat" was published posthumously in 1912. He also wrote an entire pamphlet on Shakespeare, which I either haven't read or can't remember. I'll see if its available on line now.
Yourself said Beethoven is not even fundamental to the argument, he is not analysing Beethoven, rather targeting him with his own ideas, in the end, Beethoven is not Beethoven, just an Anti-Tolstoy.
Edit: Yes, Tolstoy did not turned into a bad writer at all. His "christians" themes tales are not worth, but he had good works. I think Khostomer (sp) short story, a fable about a horse, ranks up there with the best short stories. It is a bitter, cynical, critical Tolstoy. Excellent
Today Beethoven's late works are recognized as works of genius, but to many great professional musicians and critics among his contemporaries and among the next couple of generations, they were problematic and challenging. Long after the 9th Symphony was composed, as astute a critic as Eduard Hanslick described it as like a torso in white marble with a green head attached (bad paraphrase from memory, sorry)—meaning it didn't gel as a unified work. So Tolstoy's opinion of late Beethoven was not particularly eccentric and certainly not indefensible. (Attributing its alleged aesthetic defects to deafness seems dumb however.) Now if he had made such statements about the big middle-period masterpieces, that would be another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Also, Beethoven was considered by many among his contemporaries and successive generations to be the quintessential Romantic artist. It is a modern convention to lump him with Haydn and Mozart.
You can't take a critique seriously if it is of a "masterpiece" but by a person from the same era. Genius work will always be considered so unique to the time that even the best known artists that lived at that period would have strong opinions about it.
It makes perfect sense that well-respected artists would often-times judge other masterpieces from the same time period as horrid.