What is art?
by Leo Tolstoy
On This Page
Description
During the decades of his world fame as sage and preacher as well as author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, Tolstoy wrote prolifically in a series of essays and polemics on issues of morality, social justice and religion. These culminated in What is Art?, published in 1898. Although Tolstoy perceived the question of art to be a religious one, he considered and rejected the idea that art reveals and reinvents through beauty. The works of Dante, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, show more Baudelaire and even his own novels are condemned in the course of Tolstoy's impassioned and iconoclastic redefinition of art as a force for good, for the progress and improvement of mankind. In his illuminating preface Richard Pevear considers What is Art? in relation to the problems of faith and doubt, and the spiritual anguish and fear of death which preoccupied Tolstoy in the last decades of his life. show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Reviews
Unlike many works of aesthetics which tend to be overly abstract and dense, using technical terms from philosophy and a layering of sophisticated concepts, Leo Tolstoyâs book is clear-cut, employing language and ideas anybody interested in the subject can understand.
Tolstoy is passionate about art and art's place within human experience. For many years, he tells us, he has been observing art and reading about art. And what he sees and reads is not pretty. For instance, he goes to a rehearsal of opera: "All is stopped, and the director, turning to the orchestra, attacks the French horn, scolding him in the rudest of terms, as cabmen abuse each other, for taking the wrong note."
Seen through Tolstoy's eyes, the entire production is a show more ridiculous, grotesque, overblown extravagance. We can imagine Tolstoy shaking his head when he observes, "It would be difficult to find a more repulsive sight."
Tolstoy presents a detailed sampling of what philosophers and aestheticians have written about art and beauty throughout history, particularly since the eighteenth century, when aesthetics became a subject unto itself. The theories range from art being an expression of divine truth to art being a titillation of the senses of seeing, hearing, feeling and even tasting and smelling. Tolstoy notes toward the end of his study, "Therefore, however strange it may seem to say so, in spite of the mountains of books written about art, no exact definition of art has been constructed. And the reason for this is that the conception of art has been based on the conception of beauty." According to Tolstoy, we must investigate a better way to view art than linking art with beauty.
Further on, Tolstoy gives us an example of a young art gallery-goer being baffled at the painting of the various modern schools of art, impressionism, post-impressionism and the like. Tolstoy empathizes with the gallery-goer and knows most other ordinary folk share this same reaction, as when he states: "the majority of people who are in sympathy with me, do not understand the productions of the new art, simply because there is nothing in it to understand, and because it is bad art."
Why is this the case in the modern world? Tolstoy lays the blame on the artistic and spiritual fragmentation of a society divided by class, "As soon as ever the art of the upper classes separated itself from universal art, a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be incomprehensible to the masses."
Tolstoy views the modern institutionalization of art with its professional artists and art critics supported by the upper class as the prime culprit responsible for a plethora of artworks that are degrading, meaningless and fake. He writes: "Becoming ever poorer and poorer in subject-matter, and more and more unintelligible in form, the art of the upper classes, in its latest productions, has even lost all the characteristics of art, and has been replaced by imitations of art."
To compound the problem, Tolstoy tells us schools teaching art take mankind away from what is true in art, "To produce such counterfeits, definite rules or recipes exist in each branch of art." We come to see, with Tolstoy as our guide, how aspiring artists are given these counterfeits as models to follow and imitate; things have gone so far that creating art is reduced to "acquiring the knack." Anybody who is familiar with the way in which writing is taught in today's colleges and universities will see how exactly right Tolstoy is on this point - students are given a collection of essays written by modern writers in which to model their own writing.
Tolstoy provides more examples of false, muddled, insincere, bad art. His description of an opera by Richard Wagner is laugh out loud funny. We read: "This gnome, still opening his mouth in the same strange way, long continued to sing or shout." Tolstoy hated going to the theater to see an opera or ballet. He predicts art forms like opera or ballet could never and will never be appreciated and enjoyed by the common person.
Actually, on this point, he was off by a mile. Turns out, people who attend ballet nowadays can't get enough of productions like The Nutcracker. And talking about being off by a mile, Tolstoy judged Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as bad art since the work cannot be viewed as religious art nor does it unite people in one feeling; rather, he said, the fifth symphony is, "long, confused, artificial".
Goodness! Most everyday Joe work-a-day type people who are concert-goers would be thrilled if Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was on the program. What else is bad art? Tolstoy writes: "In painting we must similarly place in the class of bad art all the Church, patriotic, and exclusive pictures."
Well then, what does Tolstoy regard as good art? In a word, art that has three qualities: 1) clarity, 2) sincerity, and 3) individuality (as opposed to copying other art). And, in the authorâs view, in order to be considered good art, the work must create authentic religious feelings and engender the brotherhood of man. As examples of good art, Tolstoy cites Dickens, Hugo, Dostoevsky and the painter Millet.
You might not agree with Tolstoy on every point, but that is no reason to pass over a careful study of his views. After all, he is one of the world's great writers and knew a thing or two about art. show less
Unlike many works of aesthetics which tend to be overly abstract and dense, using technical terms from philosophy and a layering of sophisticated concepts, Leo Tolstoyâs book is clear-cut, employing language and ideas anybody interested in the subject can understand.
Tolstoy is passionate about art and art's place within human experience. For many years, he tells us, he has been observing art and reading about art. And what he sees and reads is not pretty. For instance, he goes to a rehearsal of opera: "All is stopped, and the director, turning to the orchestra, attacks the French horn, scolding him in the rudest of terms, as cabmen abuse each other, for taking the wrong note." Seen through Tolstoy's eyes, the entire production is a show more ridiculous, grotesque, overblown extravagance. We can imagine Tolstoy shaking his head when he observes, "It would be difficult to find a more repulsive sight."
Tolstoy presents a detailed sampling of what philosophers and aestheticians have written about art and beauty throughout history, particularly since the eighteenth century, when aesthetics became a subject unto itself. The theories range from art being an expression of divine truth to art being a titillation of the senses of seeing, hearing, feeling and even tasting and smelling. Tolstoy notes toward the end of his study, "Therefore, however strange it may seem to say so, in spite of the mountains of books written about art, no exact definition of art has been constructed. And the reason for this is that the conception of art has been based on the conception of beauty." According to Tolstoy, we must investigate a better way to view art than linking art with beauty.
Further on, Tolstoy gives us an example of a young art gallery-goer being baffled at the painting of the various modern schools of art, impressionism, post-impressionism and the like. Tolstoy empathizes with the gallery-goer and knows most other ordinary folk share this same reaction, " . . . the majority of people who are in sympathy with me, do not understand the productions of the new art, simply because there is nothing in it to understand, and because it is bad art . . . " Why is this the case in the modern world? Tolstoy lays the blame on the artistic and spiritual fragmentation of a society divided by class, "As soon as ever the art of the upper classes separated itself from universal art, a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be incomprehensible to the masses."
Tolstoy views the modern institutionalization of art with its professional artists and art critics supported by the upper class as the prime culprit responsible for a plethora of artworks that are degrading, meaningless and fake. He writes: "Becoming ever poorer and poorer in subject-matter, and more and more unintelligible in form, the art of the upper classes, in its latest productions, has even lost all the characteristics of art, and has been replaced by imitations of art."
To compound the problem, Tolstoy tells us schools teaching art take mankind away from what is true in art, "To produce such counterfeits, definite rules or recipes exist in each branch of art." We come to see, with Tolstoy as our guide, how aspiring artists are given these counterfeits as models to follow and imitate; things have gone so far that creating art is reduced to `acquiring the knack'. Anybody who is familiar with the way in which writing is taught in today's colleges and universities will see how exactly right Tolstoy is on this point -- students are given a collection of essays written by modern writers in which to model their own writing.
Tolstoy provides more examples of false, muddled, insincere, bad art. His description of an opera by Richard Wagner is laugh out loud funny. We read: "This gnome, still opening his mouth in the same strange way, long continued to sing or shout." Tolstoy hated going to the theater to see an opera or ballet. He predicts art forms like opera or ballet could never and will never be appreciated and enjoyed by the common person.
Actually, on this point, he was off by a mile. Turns out, people who attend ballet nowadays can't get enough of productions like the Nutcracker. And talking about being off by a mile, Tolstoy judged Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as bad art since the work cannot be viewed as religious art nor does it unite people in one feeling; rather, he said, the fifth symphony is, "long, confused, artificial". Goodness! Most everyday Joe work-a-day type people who are concert-goers would be thrilled if Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was on the program. What else is bad art? Tolstoy writes: "In painting we must similarly place in the class of bad art all the Church, patriotic, and exclusive pictures . . ."
Well then, what does Tolstoy regard as good art? In a word, art that has three qualities: 1) clarity, 2) sincerity, and 3) individuality (as opposed to copying other art). And, in the authorâs view, in order to be considered good art, the work must create authentic religious feelings and engender the brotherhood of man. As examples of good art, Tolstoy cites Dickens, Hugo, Dostoevsky and the painter Millet.
You might not agree with Tolstoy on every point, but that is no reason to pass over a careful study of his views. After all, he is one of the world's great writers and knew a thing or two about art. show less
[Sophia Tolstaya] was real to him only when and because he wanted physical love; he became cold when he was sexually sated, and indifferent to her. The manâartist and husband, wanting to be a saint, on the path toward the renunciation of all power, all wealth, all violenceâmanaged not to cut off his nose to spite his face. "A man," he wrote in a letter, "ought not to set himself the task of chastity, but only the approach towards chastity." â Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse
On Emotional Infection
The first lines of Eugene Onegin (that classic of Russian Sensibility) concern our hero's sick-unto-death uncle. Though Eugene is solicitous in this scene, this only shows that the moribund might â to a certain extent â still have some use show more for us. It seems the wealthy uncle on his deathbed has a quality in common with the moribund theory of aesthetics: the unspoken anticipation of a transfer of power. Perhaps this explains the construction of Richard Pevear's preface to my edition of this text, which is remarkable in its impudence, "He wanted to purify art of all non-good feelings, all false and enslaving mysteries, all that is ambiguous, irrational, antinomic. He wanted art to progress towards â what? More singing and banging on scythes? More stories about chickens?" (28). I suspect even hardline "Tolstoyans" may have difficulty taking everything in 'What is Art?' "literally and seriously." Pevear recuperates Tolstoy's project by a retreat to an understanding of the text as a "psychological investigation." (This is also how Harold Bloom recuperates Shakespeare's worst excesses â the trick is that every "text" is "psychological.") Instead, I propose that one might read the What is Art? "literally and seriously" as a frank conception of the "Tolstoyan" project.
Perhaps the chief feature of character drama in Tolstoy is the Relapse. Even in Gogol (who is generally the better writer) an afternoon of sweaty scythe-work can change forever a chief character's "relation to the peasant class." Pushkin's Onegin is a steady traipse through the "stages on life's way" in a tragic romance sans-paroxysm. In Tolstoy, an infectious love for the peasant can be cured that same evening with a stroll on the Nevsky Prospect. We find these relapses in Tolstoy particularly "true" since they represent our experience of the cyclic return to "real life." Moments of infectious good-humor (albeit always already presaging a return to the quotidian) seem to reflect the Tolstoyan notion of "Art" described in this text: "Art is that human activity which consists in one manâs consciously conveying to others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, and in others being infected by those feelings and also experiencing them" (90).
What's interesting about art-as-emotional-infection is that it appears to invert, in its structure, the Tolstoyan "ethics" of chastity. The notion of an uneventful life punctuated by episodes of infectious excitement (followed by the relapse to Normal Relations) seems to be, pardon me, a direct analogy to the sexual relation. Ivan Ilyich who can only sustain a Christian Feeling when he is having his feet rubbed, finds his analog in Dworkin's gloss on Sophia Tolstaya, "cold indifference to her after intercourse, which changed only when he wanted intercourse again. This afflicts her marriage from its beginning until his death" (Dworkin, Intercourse). So perhaps it's not "Intercourse" that's the problem, but the fact of its cyclical recurrence. At this point, one might point to herpetic infection as model for the relation to art that arises from the periodic recurrence of, "others being infected by feelings one has experienced (and also experiencing them)." (Another parallel: The schmaltzy scene of peasant with his "Falcine" sickle has its corollary in the malarial "Falciparum," vector of cyclical fever.)
One of the highlights of this text is Tolstoy's amusing critique of the "artificial" use of leitmotif in Siegfried (186), though one would have suspected that the Wagnerian opera, constructed as a Gesamtkunstwerk ("total work of art"), would epitomize "infectious" art-work. This seems a bit paradoxical since the notion of "infectious feeling," which frees Tolstoy from the world of contemporary art criticism, gives no criteria for a negative judgment. No matter how "artificial" something might be, Tolstoy acknowledges, "one can get accustomed to anythingâ (150). We find that, in order to substantiate his ability to make judgments, Tolstoy declares a second movement: "Great works of art are great only because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone" (151). So Tolstoy returns to the realm of art criticism that he had attempted to depart with the first movement, creating an enclosure for the critical art-object.
This is a problematic closure. (Least of all because one then wonders: For Tolstoy, are great works of art, in their universal appeal, like great works of Intercourse . . . excuse me, perhaps a question for another essay.) We are always already beyond the notion that a peasant woman's simple song, or "stories about chickens" have universal appeal beyond the "Russian Sensibility." (Lispector, of course, is the exception.) What is to be done when confronted by people without a (Russian) Soul; moreover, what of that quantity of persons who don't experience the "infectious feeling" in their Body. Should Tolstoy dismiss his Art or denigrate the critic whose mere existence brings his theory of total "accessibility" into question. Of course, we already have a model for a squabble over inconsequential matters (e.g. Art) between two parties that want to annihilate each other, though they really both want the same thing, i.e. the marital struggle. So we suspect Tolstoy would exclude these critics with the same fervor and indifference he employed in his marriage to Sophia Tolstaya. It seems writers like Tolstoy always have a phrase at hand for Critics who are "unloving" (soul-less) and "unfuckable" (dis-embodied): Frigid Bitches. show less
An interesting conception of the basis of art by the famed Tolstoy. The prose is stiff, but the ideas are original and considerable. A pleasant read, and one that gives rise to careful logical, and moral, consideration of the idea of art itself.
3 stars.
3 stars.
Much better and more convincing than I was expecting. Even Tolstoy's literature review is entertaining. And yes, it gets a bit repetitive, and it's not perfectly thought through, but as a work of social and cultural criticism, this deserves (even) more praise than it receives.
Lev Tolstoi Ă«shtĂ« njĂ« nga shkrimtarĂ«t e mĂ«dhenj tĂ« njerĂ«zimit. PĂ«rshkrimi i goditur i ngjarjeve tĂ« shekullit tĂ« 19tĂ«, pĂ«rsiatja e botĂ«s sĂ« brendshme tĂ« personazheve, gjuha e larmishme dhe e Ă«mbĂ«l, fama e tij si fisnik i pasur dhe altruist, por edhe misioni pedagogjik i gjithĂ« shkrimeve tĂ« tij kanĂ« bĂ«rĂ« qĂ« Tolstoi tĂ« ketĂ« reputacion dhe influencĂ« tĂ« pamasĂ« te brezat e shkrimtarĂ«ve. PĂ«rveç krijimtarisĂ« sĂ« tij artistike, Tolstoi Ă«shtĂ« pĂ«rpjekur, po ashtu, qĂ« tĂ« ishte produktiv edhe nĂ« fushat e eseistikĂ«s dhe filozofisĂ«. NjĂ« nga librat e tij filozofikĂ« Ă«shtĂ« vepra Shto Takoje Iskustvo?, qĂ« nĂ« shqip pĂ«rkthehet: ĂfarĂ« Ă«shtĂ« arti?
Thuhet qĂ« kjo vepĂ«r Tolstoit i mori pesĂ«mbĂ«dhjetĂ« vjet show more hulumtim dhe u shkrua nĂ« njĂ« kohĂ« kur Tolstoi kishte hequr dorĂ« nga proza dhe drama, duke arritur nĂ« pĂ«rfundimin se romani i tij Ana Karenina nuk mund tĂ« ishte art. FatkeqĂ«sisht pĂ«r Tolstoin, nĂ« versionin e tij filozofik, ĂfarĂ« Ă«shtĂ« arti? pak gjĂ«ra arrin nĂ« filozofinĂ« e artit: filozofĂ«t qĂ« ai pĂ«rmend nĂ« libĂ«r nuk interpretohen korrektĂ«sisht, pothuajse çdo kapitull i librit pĂ«rmend tĂ« njĂ«jtin konkluzion qĂ« detyra e artit Ă«shtĂ« bashkimi i njerĂ«zve, veprat e Richard Wagner dhe Henrik Ibsen paraqiten si plehra, shtjellimi i formave dhe elementeve tĂ« artit ose mungon ose Ă«shtĂ« i dobĂ«t, i gjithĂ« pĂ«rkufizimi autorial i estetikĂ«s duket se lidhet me besimin e Tolstoit qĂ« arti (ose, mĂ« saktĂ«, vetĂ«m mesazhi i veprave) duhet tĂ« bashkojĂ« njerĂ«zit ânjĂ«lloj siç i bashkon Krishterimi. show less
Thuhet qĂ« kjo vepĂ«r Tolstoit i mori pesĂ«mbĂ«dhjetĂ« vjet show more hulumtim dhe u shkrua nĂ« njĂ« kohĂ« kur Tolstoi kishte hequr dorĂ« nga proza dhe drama, duke arritur nĂ« pĂ«rfundimin se romani i tij Ana Karenina nuk mund tĂ« ishte art. FatkeqĂ«sisht pĂ«r Tolstoin, nĂ« versionin e tij filozofik, ĂfarĂ« Ă«shtĂ« arti? pak gjĂ«ra arrin nĂ« filozofinĂ« e artit: filozofĂ«t qĂ« ai pĂ«rmend nĂ« libĂ«r nuk interpretohen korrektĂ«sisht, pothuajse çdo kapitull i librit pĂ«rmend tĂ« njĂ«jtin konkluzion qĂ« detyra e artit Ă«shtĂ« bashkimi i njerĂ«zve, veprat e Richard Wagner dhe Henrik Ibsen paraqiten si plehra, shtjellimi i formave dhe elementeve tĂ« artit ose mungon ose Ă«shtĂ« i dobĂ«t, i gjithĂ« pĂ«rkufizimi autorial i estetikĂ«s duket se lidhet me besimin e Tolstoit qĂ« arti (ose, mĂ« saktĂ«, vetĂ«m mesazhi i veprave) duhet tĂ« bashkojĂ« njerĂ«zit ânjĂ«lloj siç i bashkon Krishterimi. show less
Art is an infection of feeling and experience. Despite the title and author, this is a down to earth layman's discussion on the definition of art. You don't need to have any particular passion for the arts to enjoy this book. It's more about art's impact on societal issues. You will never go to a museum or art gallery and see things the same afterwards.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Russian Literature
184 works; 32 members
Works concerning William Shakespeare
75 works; 4 members
Trinity College Booklist (1951): Class Seven, Fine Arts and Music
46 works; 3 members
Tonikat reading completed on Librarything journals
329 works; 2 members
How to Read a Book's Recommended Reading List
309 works; 10 members
Art History and Appreciation
36 works; 1 member
Author Information
2,479+ Works 128,969 Members
Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born on September 9, 1828 in Russia. He is usually referred to as Leo Tolstoy. He was a Russian author who is regarded as one of the greatest authors of all time. Leo Tolstoy is best known for his novels War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877). Tolstoy's fiction includes dozens of short stories and several show more novellas such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Family Happiness, and Hadji Murad. He also wrote plays and numerous philosophical essays. Tolstoy had a profound moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870's which he outlined in his work, A Confession. His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him to become a fervent Christian anarchist and pacifist. His ideas of nonviolent resistance which he shared in his works The Kingdom of God is Within You, had a profund impact on figures such as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. On September 23, 1862 Tolstoy married Sophia Andreevna Behrs. She was the daughter of a court physician. They had 13 children, eight of whom survived childhood. Their early married life allowed Tolstoy much freedom to compose War and Peace and Anna Karenina with his wife acting as his secretary and proofreader. The Tolstoy family left Russia in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Soviet Union. Leo Tolstoy's relatives and descendants moved to Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the United States. Tolstoy died of pneumonia at Astapovo train station, after a day's rail journey south on November 20, 1910 at the age of 82. (Bowker Author Biography) Count Leo Tolstoy was born in 1828 on the family estate of Yasnaya Polyana in the Tula province. He married in 1862 & was the father of 13 children. Tolstoy managed the estate of Yasnaya Polyana & ran its peasant schools, while writing his great novels, "War & Peace" (1869) & "Anna Karenina" (1877). He died in 1910. (Publisher Provided) show less
Some Editions
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Work Relationships
Is abridged in
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- What Is Art?; What is art?
- Original title
- Chto takoye iskusstvo?
- Original publication date
- 1897; 1898 (English translation) (English translation)
- First words
- Pick up any newspaper of our time, and in every one of them you will find a section on theatre and music; in almost every issue you will find a description of some exhibition or other, or of some particular painting, and in e... (show all)very one you will find reports on newly appearing books of an artistic nature â poetry, stories, novels.
- Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)The task of Christian art is the realization of the brotherly union of men.
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)But, incomplete as it may be, it is certain to be incomparably better than the impression one gets from reading the four booklets in which it has been published. - Original language
- Russian
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 937
- Popularity
- 28,193
- Reviews
- 10
- Rating
- (3.78)
- Languages
- 13 — Chinese, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 72
- ASINs
- 37
