Thread 24651755

>I remember seeing a performance of Hamlet by Rossi. Both the tragedy itself and the performer who took the chief part are considered by our critics to represent the climax of supreme dramatic art. And yet, both from the subject-matter of the drama and from the performance, I experienced all the time that peculiar suffering which is caused by false imitations of works of art. And I lately read of a theatrical performance among the savage tribe the Voguls. A spectator describes the play. A big Vogul and a little one, both dressed in reindeer skins, represent a reindeer-doe and its young. A third Vogul, with a bow, represents a huntsman on snow-shoes, and a fourth imitates with his voice a bird that warns the reindeer of their danger. The play is that the huntsman follows the track that the doe with its young one has travelled. The deer run off the scene and again reappear. (Such performances take place in a small tent-house.) The huntsman gains more and more on the pursued. The little deer is tired, and presses against its mother. The doe stops to draw breath. The hunter comes up with them and draws his bow. But just then the bird sounds its note, warning the deer of their danger. They escape. Again there is a chase, and again the hunter gains on them, catches them and lets fly his arrow. The arrow strikes the young deer. Unable to run, the little one presses against its mother. The mother licks its wound. The hunter draws another arrow. The audience, as the eye-witness describes them, are paralysed with suspense; deep groans and even weeping is heard among them. And, from the mere description, I felt that this was a true work of art.
Soul.

Sounds like contrarianism

The hell is that?

>>24651780
>It is true that this indication is an internal one, and that there are people who have forgotten what the action of real art is, who expect something else from art (in our society the great majority are in this state), and that therefore such people may mistake for this æsthetic feeling the feeling of divertisement and a certain excitement which they receive from counterfeits of art. But though it is impossible to undeceive these people, just as it is impossible to convince a man suffering from “Daltonism” that green is not red, yet, for all that, this indication remains perfectly definite to those whose feeling for art is neither perverted nor atrophied, and it clearly distinguishes the feeling produced by art from all other feelings.

>>24651755 (OP)
Another uncultured pleb is awed by Tolstoy's critique of art. It's the same process when a teenager discovers Nietzsche's critique of Christianity. Essentially a stupid and unprepared mind is dominated by the force of a viewpoint that should only ever be considered when one is intelligent enough to understand it as a challenge to the ordinary view of things, not something to wholesale replace the ordinary.

>>24652244
Nietzsche in particular, you basically have to read the Greeks PLUS the Germans in their totality to really understand the perspective he's coming from, along with probably Augustine and the Bible itself. Starting with Nietzsche is like starting a video game at the second-to-last boss fight.

>>24652244
>People say that works of art do not please the people because they are incapable of understanding them. But if the aim of works of art is to infect people with the emotion the artist has experienced, how can one talk about not understanding?

>A man of the people reads a book, sees a picture, hears a play or a symphony, and is touched by no feeling. He is told that this is because he cannot understand. People promise to let a man see a certain show; he enters and sees nothing. He is told that this is because his sight is not prepared for this show. But the man well knows that he sees quite well, and if he does not see what people promised to show him, he only concludes (as is quite just) that those who undertook to show him the spectacle have not fulfilled their engagement. And it is perfectly just for a man who does feel the influence of some works of art to come to this conclusion concerning artists who do not, by their works, evoke feeling in him. To say that the reason a man is not touched by my art is because he is still too stupid, besides being very self-conceited and also rude, is to reverse the rôles, and for the sick to send the hale to bed.

>>24652272
Yes anon, we've all read Tolstoy's What Is Art? before, you're just demonstrating your slavish adherence to a newfound system and lack of original thought by posting nothing but paragraphs of quotes.

>>24652354
You're only malding because he's right about (almost) everything and the vast majority of people intuitively understand that what he's saying is evident and could not be any other way.

>>24652455
>the vast majority of people
are not adequate arbiters of higher culture. Don't get me wrong, the Vogul play Tolstoy mentions sounds kino, but it evokes a more primordial sort of feeling that cannot be compared side by side with rarefied high culture such as Shakespeare and Bach, whose aim is quite different. Tolstoy's critique is demagogic and relies on an ignorance and disbelief in these educated conceptions that was already common in the degenerating Russian society of his age.

It seems Tolstoy was born too soon.

>>24652714
He literally studied aesthetics for 15 years and at the beginning lays out the major philosophies of the time and why he disagrees with them, along with throughout the essay explaining what several of these high culture artists are going for in their works, so you can't claim he's an ignorant retard.
>it evokes a more primordial sort of feeling that cannot be compared side by side with rarefied high culture such as Shakespeare and Bach, whose aim is quite different.
Emotions are universal and the primary purpose of art is to transmit these emotions. These "higher" works of art might only arouse interest in certain people, especially those who have actually done the prerequisite philosophical homework, but it comes at the expense of more universal, penetrative feelings that are imparted by the best and purest art. Can interest or satisfaction be equated with authentic, felt experience?
The typical fallback is that it doesn't come at the expense of those more fundamental emotions and that it actually lets you feel even greater emotions, but that's an untruth.

>>24652272
nah I know A LOT of retards who are too stupid to understand and appreciate art.

>>24652835
>Emotions are universal
Emotions are certainly not universal, so his argument is bunk anyway. Still, if anything, the emotions in Shakespeare are far more universal, albeit transmitted through their own cultural reckoning, than those in Tolstoy's drab moralism.
>These "higher" works of art might only arouse interest in certain people
Good. That's who they're meant for.
>Can interest or satisfaction be equated with authentic, felt experience?
Buzzwords. Though even if we accept them, Shakespeare's works are pretty much the peak of poetic authenticity.
>it doesn't come at the expense of those more fundamental emotions and that it actually lets you feel even greater emotions, but that's an untruth.
Not an argument. Where is the untruth in this? There is no sacrifice of fundamental emotions in the complex artistry of a Shakespeare or a Bach.
It's clear to me that Tolstoy, being a man of his time and place, was intoxicated with delusory ideological notions of the 'man of the people' or the 'human being as such', when really there is no such thing in contrast to the man of culture. The very definition of the people being a chaotic multiplicity, they cannot be understood in terms of singular and articulate representation.

>>24652902
>Emotions are certainly not universal
Lol good start.
>Good. That's who they're meant for.
Insulated people who've lost the plot.
>Shakespeare's works are pretty much the peak of poetic authenticity.
It's astonishing you can't see the glaring artifice of his plays - recycled tropes, derivative and undistinguished voices, shoddily constructed, borrowed plots that are often aharmonious with the monologues being forced. Ideally each part of a work is necessary and inevitable; with him you can almost see the seams.
>Not an argument. Where is the untruth in this? There is no sacrifice of fundamental emotions in the complex artistry of a Shakespeare or a Bach.
There is no seamlessly working a math equation into a dramatic work without detracting from the whole just as there is no trading lucidity and immediacy for a philosophical ideal without dampening the impact. Again, it merely accomplishes fulfillment of vanity or satisfaction for a select few, and satisfaction, a feeling achieved from solving a math equation, is not to be conflated with art. Shakespeare's barrage of metaphors, wordplay, references, etc. bog his projects down. If you care solely about isolated bits of beauty in art, then Shakespeare is likely the best constructor of single sentences the English-speaking world and maybe world at large has produced, but it's not hard to see why someone wouldn't be willing to sift through the mud to enjoy those gems.

>>24652992
>Insulated people who've lost the plot
>sift through the mud to enjoy those gems
The absolute state of you, being unable to even conceive that some people might actually enjoy the culminative fruits of their culture. You might as well be illiterate at this point.

>>24652835
>He literally studied aesthetics for 15 years
And no one else ever studied aesthetics for 15 years. Tolstoy is the one man in history to understand art because he appeals to your philistine sensibilities. Never mind the fact that artists like Beethoven, Shakespeare, Aeschylus and Dante are capable of appealing to the lowest as well as the highest classes, Tolstoy says they're shit so they must be shit. Tolstoy's philosophy is always 100% right and his judgement and application of that philosophy is also always 100% right. A Beethoven symphony definitely doesn't express universal emotions that plebs are capable of understanding, because Tolstoy said so.

>>24652992
>references
shakespeare was and is universally considered notably inerudite.
>wordplay
plebs love wordplay, the only reason you see this as a mark of erudition is because the wordplay is now outdated and requires a scholarly background to understand. back then it was just puns.
>metaphors
i don't think this means anything. metaphors are not inherently difficult to understand.
>artifice
there are different types of artifice. the reuse of tropes is not the type that matters here and it certainly doesn't preclude authenticity. your whole thing is about universal emotions, if you're dealing with those then you will necessarily run into the same situation more than once.

>>24651755 (OP)
I remember expressing an opinion on here and some anon accused me of being a plotfag. That was perhaps unfair, but anyway to know what's going on Tolstoy was basically a plotfag. That's why he was the greatest plotter in the history of the novel. Probably overrated as an artist since the novel is the minor form of art, even if it is the form of our time

>>24652835
>>24652902
Most idiotic debate I've ever witnessed here. Tolstoy was a tortured eccentric, an unbelievably arrogant genius, who was revived from a sense of nothingness by adhering to the simple faith of peasants. His writings on aesthetics are very interesting and he makes good points, but at the end of the day for anyone who has experience the sublimity of the artists who he desecrates, all of his criticism at the end of the day is meaningless. He was far from being the greatest man of culture of his century but there is a connection between his dismissal of art and his perfection of art, because art above all need clarity and connection to warmly felt life. Leave it at that.

>>24653093
No you're projecting your own mindless adherence to the canon onto me. I'm left in awe at Tolstoy's critique because it so lucidly explains things I've been feeling for quite some time. I don't agree with him on everything; there are some writers that I know for a fact he would (and did) dismiss that I enjoy, but our tastes were largely aligned before reading the critique. His breakdown of the four hallmarks of artifical art - Borrowing, Imitating, Striking, Interesting - is so keen and explanatory when it comes to making sense of why I (and most people) feel repelled by the majority of literature and music people hold up as "important." And if you've ever tried to make art yourself, can you doubt that the marker of your best work is whatever flows from you most sincerely or carries the most power of emotion when you transmute it? Most arguments on this board boil down to people claiming pseud and filtered, is that not telling? Call me philistine and pleb all you like, but it kind of proves the point Tolstoy was making. This new art is defended not on the basis of its true artistic merits but the unique criteria of a haughty upper class that has nothing to do with art.

>>24653311
>art above all need clarity and connection to warmly felt life
Yes, which is lacking in the artists he "desecrates"

>>24653304
>Tolstoy was basically a plotfag.
Idk why this made me laugh as much as it did

>>24653738
Anon, I'm telling you, read Barzun's Use and Abuse of Art. It's a small essay-length book of four chapters and intense clarity that will help you develop a more measured/tempered idea of art. Tolstoy's thinking is far too black and white.

>>24653311
Yeah, you're an even bigger faggot than the other guy. At least he has a point that he's discussing.

>>24651755 (OP)
Doltstoy seething about Shakespeare

>>24651755 (OP)
This is the /lit/ version of Jack White saying his favorite song is a 100 year old recording of some guy clapping and singing unaccompanied. If you like simplicity and directness so much then why isn't your art like that?

>>24654811
>If you like simplicity and directness so much then why isn't your art like that
Tolstoy's art is the definition of simple and direct. He's probably the "easiest" major writer. Nabokov called War and Peace a children's book.
>>24654432
> At least he has a point that he's discussing.
The points your are discussing are beyond retarded. My post made real points
>>24653738
Okay Dr. Freud

>>24654432
Will do.

>>24654852
>Okay Dr. Freud
Real rich after your post amounted to merely psychoanalyzing Tolstoy and engaging with zero of his points then somehow declaring yourself the voice of reason.

>>24654895
You're a sassy faggot. I am the highest voice of reason compared to your muh argument excretions

>>24654903
Please point me to where you think you said anything of value and I'll do my best to engage with it. No, calling Tolstoy le tortured genius and other people stupid is not an argument.

>>24654961
I am not arguing anything, I'm presenting the truth
> No, calling Tolstoy le tortured genius and
You just take cocks up the ass several times a day, kek

>>24653738
>if you've ever tried to make art yourself, can you doubt that the marker of your best work is whatever flows from you most sincerely or carries the most power of emotion when you transmute it?
Sure, but your mistake is in assuming that process doesn't happen at the level of higher artistic production as well. A drama as forceful as King Lear unmistakably welled up from Shakespeare naturally, just as a composition from Bruckner or Beethoven.