Tolstoy and art

I just clicked on something strange and now the whole layout of blogger seems to have changed. I'm confused.

5 days, 5 posts failed. Not surprising is it.
 ***
I think this will be an interesting post for most of the people who I know read my blog. Art here is referring to all creative pursuits of expression: literature, dance, etc.

I stumbled on an essay on Tolstoy's What Is Art? (1896) a long time ago and have since been trying to get my hands on a copy of the book. It's so fascinating! Tolstoy's views mirror my own in so many ways, though obviously (because I'm not a genius that wrote the greatest book in history) mine are much less sophisticated.

exhibit A: a goddamn stuffed shark (R.I.P.), valued at $8-12 million

I started deliberating on this question when I was seriously introduced to the world of post-modern art in high school. I really did not understand what I saw, and was pretty confused by some of the gushing praise extolled. In spite of friends' and the internet's attempts to justify it, I remained unconvinced and dismissed post-modern art as mostly bs... especially where there is such a fanatical emphasis on originality, and being "interesting"/confronting is so highly valued. That doesn't make sense to me. Today, my position has loosened in some ways; even if it won't ever leave me wonderstruck, I can form a mild appreciation for contemporary art.

Back to Tolstoy: bullet points are stuff I copy-pasted from the internet.

First of all:

• "Art is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is a great matter. Art is an organ of human life transmitting man's reasonable perception into feeling" 
•  "Art is a microscope which the artist fixes on the secrets of his soul, and shows to people these secrets which are common to all."

I think this an excellent definition. I used to believe that art was intrinsically linked to beauty on some level but I have since changed my opinion on this. Art expresses universal emotional realities and its most important quality is its sincerity... I don't like art for art's sake or art that is too self-aware.

•  Art is the uniting of the subjective with the objective, of nature with reason, of the unconscious with the conscious, and therefore art is the highest means of knowledge.

I'm not so sure about this part...I don't see what objectivity has to do with anything. But of the "unconsious with the conscious" etc. etc., yes. Tolstoy was a moralist, and I would identify myself as such also. His belief that art and spirituality were intrinsically connected resonates with me, but I don't think all art has to be spiritual, and I won't necessarily demean what he would consider more "base" art. However I do agree that spirituality (in the broadest sense of the term) is its loftiest goal.

Exhibit B:Onement 1
hmmmmm...

• According to Tolstoy, good art is intelligible and comprehensible. Bad art is unintelligible and incomprehensible. If any incomprehensible form of personal expression may be called "art," then the definition of art gradually loses its meaning, until it has no meaning at all. Art does not belong to any particular class of society, it must be accessible to all

I mentioned to somebody once that I don't like deconstructing art and rationalising it. This led to an argument which I definitely lost, because I couldn't properly express my feelings on the matter. When I see a piece of art its impact should wash over me like a wave. I don't think I should have to work for it, as if I am being held up to some standard, and not it.Simply, if I don't get it, I can't like it! I hate taking things apart to bits and trying to analyse it scientifically (as if that's possible). It kills the magic and I don't believe that art is an intellectual pursuit in that way.

nb: Don't take it to mean here that I am demeaning subtlety or sophistication. It's just that after a certain point (though it's difficult to delineate exactly where that might be) subtlety turns into mush. Read the above bullet point again.

That leads me to another point: we should get rid of the distinction between high and low art. Everything can be enriching and valuable in its own way. My bookshelf for example: it has random Filmfare magazines, a few fashion magazines, comic books, Harry Potter, lots of classics (but not the silly orange penguin ones), poetry, picture books (I reeeeeally like picture books) and a few of the bestseller types.

One of mine: I did this in bed one night in yr 10, mostly with fingers and a paddlepop stick. I can't find it now :(

 I entered this in a small exhibition a few years ago...

flushing modesty down the toilet, I like this a lot :p

PS: I know that most people in the 21st century won't agree with me, including the specific 4-5 people that I wrote this for. I hope you don't take it that I pooh-pooh your version of the story After all, if art is subjective, why can't our definition of it also be?