I'm questioning the term "excellent" as applied to Rand.
Printable View
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.
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.
Tolstoy's essay on Shakespeare is available on this very site! Here's a short exerpt. Although most of us may disagree with it, to call it illogical, irrational, irrascible or silly seems inappropriate. It is plainly, logically, and simply written and argued:
Quote:
Dramatic art, according to the laws established by those very critics who extol Shakespeare, demands that the persons represented in the play should be, in consequence of actions proper to their characters, and owing to a natural course of events, placed in positions requiring them to struggle with the surrounding world to which they find themselves in opposition, and in this struggle should display their inherent qualities.
In "King Lear" the persons represented are indeed placed externally in opposition to the outward world, and they struggle with it. But their strife does not flow from the natural course of events nor from their own characters, but is quite arbitrarily established by the author, and therefore can not produce on the reader the illusion which represents the essential condition of art.
Lear has no necessity or motive for his abdication; also, having lived all his life with his daughters, has no reason to believe the words of the two elders and not the truthful statement of the youngest; yet upon this is built the whole tragedy of his position.
Similarly unnatural is the subordinate action: the relation of Gloucester to his sons. The positions of Gloucester and Edgar flow from the circumstance that Gloucester, just like Lear, immediately believes the coarsest untruth and does not even endeavor to inquire of his injured son whether what he is accused of be true, but at once curses and banishes him. The fact that Lear's relations with his daughters are the same as those of Gloucester to his sons makes one feel yet more strongly that in both cases the relations are quite arbitrary, and do not flow from the characters nor the natural course of events. Equally unnatural, and obviously invented, is the fact that all through the tragedy Lear does not recognize his old courtier, Kent, and therefore the relations between Lear and Kent fail to excite the sympathy of the reader or spectator. The same, in a yet greater degree, holds true of the position of Edgar, who, unrecognized by any one, leads his blind father and persuades him that he has leapt off a cliff, when in reality Gloucester jumps on level ground.
These positions, into which the characters are placed quite arbitrarily, are so unnatural that the reader or spectator is unable not only to sympathize with their sufferings but even to be interested in what he reads or sees. This in the first place.
Beethoven died in 1827. Tolstoy's "What is Art?" was written 70 years after. By this time Hugo Wolf, Franz Liszt, Hector Berlioz, Richard Wagner, Piotr Tchaikovsky, Anton Bruckner, and even Johannes Brahms were all dead, and Mahler had composed his first three symphonies, Richard Strauss had composed almost all of his major "tone poems" including "Also Sprach Zarthustra", and Debussy had already churned out a good portion of his oeuvre, including Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune and Pelléas et Mélisande. By this point in time, Hanslick was recognized for what he was, a conservative critic who championed the structure and form of "classicism" believing that music began with Mozart, reached its culmination in Beethoven, and continued in the work of Schumann and Brahms. He was the most influential critic in Austria in the mid-to late 1800s and was known for abusing his power with his endless attacks upon the so-called "New Music" School... including Liszt, Bruckner, Wolf, and Richard Wagner first and foremost. Of course Wagner was not known for taking any criticism lying down, and viciously attacked Hanslick as part of a Jewish/anti-German element that was most certainly detrimental to music.
Beethoven's music was almost wholly absorbed and recognized as the work of genius by this time... with the possible exception of the Grosse Fugue. The late quartets served as the model for the chamber works of Schubert and Brahms. The 9th Symphony was the model for Berlioz' grand symphonic/operatic/choral constructions, Bruckner's and Mahler's greatly expanded symphonies... and even Brahms' First Symphony.
By the time of Tolstoy's "What is Art?" old Tolstoy was far out of the loop concerning contemporary music. Wagner had become quite possibly the single most influential artist... not merely composer... of the second half of the 19th century, and we were but a decade of so from the earth-shattering Modernist innovations of Stravinsky, Bartok, and Schoenberg.
I agree that our notion of "Romanticism" is not the same as that of the Romantic period... but then this is commonly true across history. I doubt that the Renaissance artists themselves as "Renaissance Artists." Beethoven, however, is most certainly part of the "Classical" tradition moving toward Romanticism. As innovative and daring as he can be, he retains the traditional classical structures. It is Schubert (who lacked Beethoven's formal training) and Schumann who really break outside of this mold and might be seen as the first true Romantics.
One wonders what Tolstoy's take was on the painting of the era. Degas? Monet? Gauguin? Van Gogh? Munch? Was he, like the German Expressionist, Emil Nolde, repulsed by the sight of a nude woman?
Was Tolstoy repulsed by the sight of a nude? Need you ask? Although Tolstoy had 13 (I think) children, he became abstinent later in life. In that respect, he resembled his disciple, Mahatma Gandhi, who also refused to have sex with his wife, as reported in G. Orwell's superb essay "Reflections on Gandhi". In Tolstoy's case, his rejection of prurient interests seems based on a rejection of his own highly sexual nature. One need not give up drinking (or tempatations to drink) unless one has a tendency to dypsomania.
Luke, the version of the story as you recount it is widely accepted in its general outlines. But it is simplistic and misses a lot of important nuance and factual detail.
This is all true. But none of these composers had fully grasped, let alone gotten beyond, the conception of musical structure and its relation to content and expression that Beethoven explored in even his middle-period works. Sergei Rachmaninoff, widely acknowledged as one of the greatest pianists and conductors of his age, a genius of musical interpretation and a man who had met Tolstoy and whose first symphony is based on Anna Karenina, never worked late Beethoven into his repertoire, though he performed the big middle-period sonatas with regularity. The music didn't speak to him and he apparently didn't grasp it. It is difficult music—it was difficult then and it is difficult today. I don't think one can fault a non-musician like Tolstoy for not understanding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I might start by pointing out that Hanslick was pretty much right about Liszt and Bruckner and to some extent about Wolf as well:-). And his treatise On the Musically Beautiful (or The Beautiful in Music, whichever you prefer) had more influence on twentieth-century music theory and musical aesthetics than any other work of nineteenth-century criticism. Hanslick was in fact a champion of some of Wagner's early work and I'm not sure the conservative vs. new school opposition is particularly helpful in getting at his problems with late Wagner. His critique of Tristan and Isolde, for example, focuses primarily on the libretto, which he found to be full of tedious and infantile symbolism (light/dark, day/night, blah blah) and about two hours too long. It wasn't really conservatism per se that made him prefer Mozart's operas over Wagner . . . but this post is going to be long already so let's not get too far into those weeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Most critical opinion had acknowledged the greatness of the late works, but, once again, many did not really grasp it and very few if any composers of the nineteenth century followed up on it or adequately responded to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
This is simply incorrect. Schubert was just coming to terms with middle-period Beethoven at the time of his death and I see no particular influence of the late works. In matters of form, Brahms was far more conservative than Beethoven and composed nothing in the realm of chamber music that even begins to grapple with the issues raised in Beethoven's late quartets.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Berlioz ran with the idea of fusing vocal and instrument symphonic music, but the term "model" isn't really appropriate in any but the most vague and general sense. Mahler's and Brahms's first symphonies, on the other hand, and countless other works, were in fact modeled on the Ninth. The influence of the Ninth is undeniable.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Everyone in the nineteenth century (excepting Liszt) retains the traditional classical structures, more of less, when it comes to any kind of sonata cycle (sonata, symphony, string quartet). In fact, it is a general criticism of this music that they held too slavishly to classical forms (see Charles Rosen's The Classical Style). Many of Beethoven's works in these genres are indeed fully within the classical tradition. Others are more radically Romantic in the most essential sense than any composed over the next fifty years. Beethoven doesn't fit neatly or simplistically into either era. Schubert and Schumann are indeed true Romantics, especially in their emphasis on songs and song cycles, solo piano cycles, small genre piano works, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Oddly enough, considering how much time I just spent disagreeing on musical issues, but I essentially agree with your position on Tolstoy as a critic. I would have been inclined to tell him: "Oh shut up and write another novel already."Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Which artists did Tolstoy actually like?Quote:
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.
Is it a modern convention? To my mind, Beethoven is usually seen as the composer who effectively broke the mould that Haydn and Mozart's classicism had come to represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
transitioned not broke. Art is constantly changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Excluding the non-Western cultures I am not well acquainted with, I want to say that Great Britain has the greatest literature, but that is the country whose literature I've consumed the most of, and so I am wary of making such a declaration. Others have mentioned Russia, and while Russia certainly has a great literary tradition, it having produced two of my favourite writers in Dostoevsky and Chekhov, I don't think the overall stature of that tradition can compete with the likes of England, France, Italy, Germany and America. England has Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Marlowe, Johnson, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, the Brontes, Dickens and so many, many more. Spain is one country I don't know where I would rank, not having explored its literature near enough, though Don Quixote may just top my list of greatest ever novels.
If instead of nation the discussion was about which LANGUAGE possesses the greatest literature I believe it could be argued that it is English. That would add American, Irish, Canadian and Australian literatures to what is already arguably the greatest literary nation in England.
I believe he praises the Bible (especially the story of Joseph and his Brothers and the psalms), Victor Hugo’s Les Miserable (we can only guess what he might think of Ann Hathaway’s Oscar winning performance as Fantine, which induced me to hide my eyes because it was so embarrassingly bad), Dickens (he places some of Dickens’ stories in the first class of great art with a religious message of brotherly love, and others in the second class of great non-religious art), and George Eliot’s “Adam Bede”. He also like some of Dostoevsky’s work. Although he doesn’t say so in “What is Art”, I believe he was a Chekov fan, too (he admired Chekov as both an artist and a person).Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
I meant convention in the sense that if one is studying music history, he will always be classified as a composer of the Classical era, along with Haydn and Mozart. By contrast, some influential contemporary critics (E.T.A. Hoffman, for example) were way out in front in declaring him a Romantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Some of his works broke the mold, others were happily constructed using it.
He admired Chekhov talent, we can see even some short Tolstoy stories playing with Chekhov theme. But Tolstoy once told Chekhov that his plays were worst than shakespeare. Chekhov once said:
"I admire him greatly. What I admire the most in him is that he despises us all; all writers. Perhaps a more accurate description is that he treats us, other writers, as completely empty space. You could argue that from time to time, he praises Maupassant, or Kuprin, or Semenov, or myself. But why does he praise us? It is simple: it's because he looks at us as if we were children. Our short stories, or even our novels, all are child's play in comparison with his works. However, Shakespeare … For him, the reason is different. Shakespeare irritates him because he is a grown-up writer, and does not write in the way that Tolstoy does."
Overall he was very well learned man, reader of Plato, Homer, Rosseau, Pascal, Stendhal, Lao Tzu, admire Madame Bovary, etc. In a way, his sensibility is all turned to the novels. I am not so sure, but Tolstoy disdain towards Shakespeare and Dante seems an echo of Voltaire, so the french dude was probally a favorite of Tolstoy. (altough voltaire in his style, does not care about explaning anything, he will just use his witty). He was ambigous towards Dostoievisky, not a real fan, but like I said, Tolstoy perhaps felt that Dostoievisky had the freedom, he Tolstoy wanted. He started well with Turgeniev, but latter had personal issues. Admired Gogol. Also liked some Pushkin.
Yes, that's the extraordinary thing about the literature of England- the timespan. England's culture over the last 600 years is pretty much unbroken. Being an island it wasn't subjected to invasions or colonisations, which meant its literature was able to sort of snowball, with each new writer linked into and drawing upon a common past. Plus it has remained free of any profound revolutionary change (communism or fascism). It is a unique culture in many ways- an island somewhat detached from the European continent, with its own church (which in itself has a rich literary tradition- think of the King James Bible and book of common prayer) and now, because of a common language, access to the best of American culture. Then of course there is Shakespeare, who is both a universal genius and yet also a very English poet, deeply rooted in the English countryside, seasons and history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe
However we rank Tolstoy as a critic (I still think any critique he wrote is entertaining, at least), I think we can safely say that he was himself unlikely to be influenced by the critical opinions of others. As some hack playwright might have had one of his foolish characters say, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou cans't not then be false to any man."Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Since I looked at Tolstoy’s essay on “King Lear” (available on this site), I discovered that George Orwell wrote an analytical essay, "Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool" in which he suggests a motive for Tolstoy's hostility towards Shakespeare - with particular reference to the character of Lear.
Lear brings about his own tragedy by foolishly relinquishing his property and power. Though he has renounced his throne and authority, he still expects to be treated like a king. He is not.
Lear's folly is strikingly similar to Tolstoy's own bad judgment. In his old age, Tolstoy also renounced his estates, his title, and copyrights in order to escape from his privileged status and live the life of a simple peasant. This act of abdication did not bring the happiness he expected. On the contrary, Tolstoy was almost driven insane by vulgar people who persecuted him because of his renunciation.
There is no direct evidence that Tolstoy was consciously aware of his resemblance to Lear, and perhaps he would have rejected the idea if it had been pointed out to him. But Orwell emphasizes that his attitude towards the play must have been influenced by its theme - even if only at an unconscious level.
Whether Tolstoy actually regretted his "bad judgment" is questionable -- he seems a man generally confident in his decisions.
This is all true. But none of these composers had fully grasped, let alone gotten beyond, the conception of musical structure and its relation to content and expression that Beethoven explored in even his middle-period works. Sergei Rachmaninoff, widely acknowledged as one of the greatest pianists and conductors of his age, a genius of musical interpretation and a man who had met Tolstoy and whose first symphony is based on Anna Karenina, never worked late Beethoven into his repertoire, though he performed the big middle-period sonatas with regularity. The music didn't speak to him and he apparently didn't grasp it. It is difficult music—it was difficult then and it is difficult today. I don't think one can fault a non-musician like Tolstoy for not understanding it.
Well... I will agree that to suggest that Beethoven's late works were "fully digested" is something of a exaggeration... but this would be true of many works of towering genius. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Goethe, Michelangelo, Titian, Rembrandt, Matisse are all still being studied by subsequent artists who are delving deeper into the work and discovering or emphasizing elements not yet fully grasped or recognized. Having said this, we can't pretend that among the majority of composers and classical music aficionados that Beethoven's late works were not appreciated or dismissed as bad art in the manner as seen in Tolstoy.
I might start by pointing out that Hanslick was pretty much right about Liszt and Bruckner and to some extent about Wolf as well:-).
Well... this obviously depends upon personal opinion. In many ways Liszt is one of the most underrated composers... and one whose reputation is often based upon but a small portion of his output. Bruckner, like Brahms, can be very dense... so that a little goes a long way. Wolf I find quite marvelous... but he cannot be seen simply as building upon the tradition of German lieder of Schubert and Schumann. His works are more "dramatic"... the text being more of an essential part of the whole to the extent that I cannot really listen to him without following the lyrics... which is not true of Schubert or Schumann.
And his treatise On the Musically Beautiful (or The Beautiful in Music, whichever you prefer) had more influence on twentieth-century music theory and musical aesthetics than any other work of nineteenth-century criticism. Hanslick was in fact a champion of some of Wagner's early work and I'm not sure the conservative vs. new school opposition is particularly helpful in getting at his problems with late Wagner. His critique of Tristan and Isolde, for example, focuses primarily on the libretto, which he found to be full of tedious and infantile symbolism (light/dark, day/night, blah blah) and about two hours too long. It wasn't really conservatism per se that made him prefer Mozart's operas over Wagner . . . but this post is going to be long already so let's not get too far into those weeds.
I can't argue about the importance of Hanslick's treatise upon subsequent music theory, but I would question how influential this was upon the actual development of subsequent music... in comparison to the influence of actual composers such as Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner... and even Brahms. Wagner remained the lynch pin for most subsequent composers... even those such as Debussy, Puccini, and Schoenberg who eventually broke from his influence and headed in a different direction.
The late quartets served as the model for the chamber works of Schubert and Brahms.
This is simply incorrect. Schubert was just coming to terms with middle-period Beethoven at the time of his death and I see no particular influence of the late works. In matters of form, Brahms was far more conservative than Beethoven and composed nothing in the realm of chamber music that even begins to grapple with the issues raised in Beethoven's late quartets.
You may be right with regard to Schubert. Schubert spoke of the Op. 131 as Beethoven's most perfect work and requested to hear it once again upon his death bed. Then again... in response to this same work, he remarked "After this, what is left for us to write?" Schubert is always problematic in comparison to Beethoven due to his lack of formal training and virtuosity as a performer (which would impact his compositional style). Schubert was profoundly enamored of late Beethoven... but takes a different, more lyrical direction so that his late piano sonatas and quartets were often dismissed as "lightweight" in comparison to Schubert... which seems like dismissing Debussy or Ravel in light of Wagner.
Brahms chamber works, on the other side, clearly seem to build upon the tradition of Beethoven... and in many ways act as a link between Beethoven and Schoenberg (for better or worse... not being a Schoenberg fan myself).
I was actually quite surprised... just browsing some comments on late Beethoven... that Wagner was quite influenced by the late quartets. I was quite aware of the impact of the 9th... but considering the manner of Wagner's compositions, this quite surprised me.
Berlioz ran with the idea of fusing vocal and instrument symphonic music, but the term "model" isn't really appropriate in any but the most vague and general sense. Mahler's and Brahms's first symphonies, on the other hand, and countless other works, were in fact modeled on the Ninth. The influence of the Ninth is undeniable.
I agree with regard to Berlioz... but then every artist picks and chooses his or her predecessors... and what aspects of their works to build upon. I question the possibility of Berlioz symphonic/operatic/choral constructions without the examples of Beethoven and Liszt.
Everyone in the nineteenth century (excepting Liszt) retains the traditional classical structures, more of less, when it comes to any kind of sonata cycle (sonata, symphony, string quartet). In fact, it is a general criticism of this music that they held too slavishly to classical forms (see Charles Rosen's The Classical Style). Many of Beethoven's works in these genres are indeed fully within the classical tradition. Others are more radically Romantic in the most essential sense than any composed over the next fifty years. Beethoven doesn't fit neatly or simplistically into either era. Schubert and Schumann are indeed true Romantics, especially in their emphasis on songs and song cycles, solo piano cycles, small genre piano works, etc.
There seem to be debates even on the classical music sites as to whether Beethoven is a Classical or Romantic composer. I think many mistake his employment of the minor key, the emotional expression, and drama as making him inherently a Romantic... but we might then presume that Mozart's Don Giovanni is also a Romantic work. Personally, I agree with the usual notion that Beethoven is a transitional figure... pointing the direction from Classicism to Romanticism much as Monteverdi is the lynch-pin from the Renaissance to the Baroque.
Oddly enough, considering how much time I just spent disagreeing on musical issues, but I essentially agree with your position on Tolstoy as a critic. I would have been inclined to tell him: "Oh shut up and write another novel already."
I'm surprised at how bad some artists can be in judging art (Van Gogh had taste that was notoriously middling at times). But then there are those who are quite astute as critics. I think Zola, Baudelaire, Octavio Paz, and J.L. Borges fall within this category. Tolstoy...? Not. Perhaps it has much to do with the fact that Tolstoy is closer to an artist like Van Gogh than an artist like Degas or Picasso who recognizes that Art begets Art. As Cezanne put it it, The Road to the Louvre is through Nature, but the road to Nature is through the Louvre.
Whether Tolstoy actually regretted his "bad judgment" is questionable -- he seems a man generally confident in his decisions.
In this he strikes me as not unlike another visionary or messianic writer: William Blake.
Perhpas because we do not have neither Tolstoy was an essaist and he barely talked about the subject he best knew about: the work of a novelist. If we see his favorite works and writers of genres or those he had critics but even so, was draw to them, we see he knew exactly what was happening with the Novels in XIX century.
There is a difference, which is Tolstoy longevity and his supper status. In the end of XIX century he was Russia Literature and he was like a guru for other writers mixed with his social status, but yes, he had a "prophetic" sense on his work, perhaps he is the most like a biblical patriarch like Moses while Blake was a rejected prophet.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild