Course Notes – Leo Tolstoy, What Is Art? - The Electric Agora

Hi Dan, my feelings about the importance of art (really any creative act) have grown over the years. As strong as Tolstoy’s? Not sure, but it certainly is one of the most defining capacities of humans (as a species), alongside the deep and complex nature of our communication skills (language).

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the internal/external division Tolstoy made about how a work might be evaluated, there are some problems which keep me from fully embracing it.

First, I would think it might be better put that the internal is what criteria an artist might use when weighing satisfaction about a work of theirs, and the external being what others would use when weighing satisfaction with a work by someone else.

More important, it relies too much on the accuracy of communication from artist to audience (for internal), and a bit vague on how one would apply the rule betterment or best feelings, given the diverse and changing nature of societies (for external).

Often enough works of art are misunderstood by audiences and loved all the same for an alternative meaning which can be taken from them. That might depress the artist, but does that really reduce the art if it can be taken that way? And what about totally false interpretations (based on not understanding words or codes)? What about pieces of music with both sound and words? Music can be loved across cultures without the words ever being understood (and so perhaps a different meaning taken). And maybe more interesting is when an artist, on receiving (usually positive) feedback from audiences based on a different interpretation, come to look at the art differently themselves… and appreciate it for the meaning others saw in it, even if it was not their original intent.

And audiences change. Perhaps a work misses communication with an audience at one time, only to be appreciated decades or centuries later. Does it’s external value fluctuate? What if it is only meaningful (but very much so) for a sub-culture? Whose view of it being “best” gets considered more important? Since you brought up Nazi propaganda, it could very well be that many people in Germany felt such things (or things thought to promote “aryan” German greatness like Wagner) were exhibiting “best feelings”, while dismissing what German Jews were creating (and enjoyed within their culture) as “degenerate”. Does Tolstoy have a way of deciding between the two? Or would it be like most historical issues… decided by the winner?

Finally, don’t works have to be placed in a… well… aesthetic context? If everyone is aiming to produce the “best feelings” the homogeneity of art might make people become less attracted to a new piece (already seen/heard it!). This is separate from the point you made of certain times requiring transgressive or dark art to serve some social purpose. What about creating contrasts for purely aesthetic purposes?