Reviewing the Arts – Summer 07

11 responses so far ↓

• 1    John // May 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm

  Tolstoy’s theories on art are much more tangible than Plato’s. I found myself agreeing with most of his essay. In this essay, he distinguishes between “real art” and “counterfeit art”. Real art evokes a very specific feeling in the person viewing the art that s/he can share with the artist as well as others who are viewing art. This “infectiousness” is what defines (real, and excellent) works of art. Counterfeit art is that which does not create that feeling of “joy and of spiritual union” with the artist and other viewers. Counterfeit art also lacks three key things: individuality, clarity, and sincerity.

  I would agree with this theory for the most part. I am always hesitant to make claims to what art is and is not, because that is a never-ending debate. However, Tolstoy’s theory can be very useful when making a personal judgement on whether a work of art is good or not. Personally, individuality, clearity, and sincerity are all things I look for in art and are things that magnify that quintessential feeling that Tolstoy describes.

  ———————————–

  Bell claims that it is always a mistake to associate art with politics. According to Bell, “Art transports us from the world of man’s activity to a world of aesthetic exaltation.” If politics are part of the world of human activity, then by default it is disconnected from art. It may be represented in “descriptive art”, but that is not really art, Bell claims. The difference is one promotes aesthetic emotion and the other conveys information.

  Part of me agrees with this and the other part disagrees. I would say that the aesthetic emotion of art is a large part of its value. But I also find great value in real information incorporated in works of art. Often, it is the information that creates the emotional response. I find revolutionary and political art to be some of the most emotionally-driven and thought-provoking art I like. But am I reacting to the art itself? Or the information conveyed in the art? This is where the theory gets blurry.

• 2    Elizabeth // May 29, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  Tolstoy believes that art communicates feelings, not just through works, but through man’s earliest language, pictures. Tolstoy gives the example of the boy encountering the wolf. When the boy retells that story and feels the fear all over again, the people to whom the story is being told will also be able to feel that kind of fear. The activity of art is evoking a feeling that you (the artist) have felt and sending that feeling to others.

  I agree with this. For example, in writing, yes I can show an image to people through my words, but if I’m not sending out a feeling that others can actually feel, it’s useless. By getting my voice on the page, others will be able to feel what I am feeling at that moment because it’s “real.” This is why I find journaling about things most effective.

  The difference between aesthetics and criticism, according to Bell, is that aesthetics is when one thinks about the art before responding and criticism is when one responds too quickly to the art. I’m not sure if I agree or disagree. I always thought that criticism was when someone said, for example, whether a movie was good or bad and why; a movie critic. I never thought that one could be critical by responding too quickly to something. Most of the world is critical of art, then, by that definition. I respond immediately to things I have seen, heard, or read and give an opinion on whether I liked the art or not. Aesthetics, then, I have never heard of before now. If a painting or piece of writing is moving to me, and that happens very rarely for me nowadays, I’ll sit back and think about what it means and how it makes me feel. I just thought that was being contemplative. Aesthetics, what is this aesthetics? I suppose you learn something new every day.

• 3    Cheryl // May 29, 2007 at 3:18 pm

  Tolstoy believes that for art to be successful it has to have been created with individuality, clearness, and sincerity. These three elements may be of varying degrees and one more prevalent than another in a specific piece of work; however if all three are not present then decidedly, it does not merit a successful piece of art. All three of the elements Tolstoy imparts on any piece or work of art are all ways the artist expresses his feelings to the viewer.  I don’t think any artist would argue this or debunk the ideas that these elements are a means to connect to the viewer.  These are the elements of Tolstoy’s aesthetic.  He presents this idea clearly when he talked about evoking a personal experience in work through movement, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed to transmit that feeling so others can either vicariously or actually connect to the experience expressed in the work.   

  Clive takes a similar view believing that artists present an emotion to the viewer through work, but Clive, unlike Tolstoy, believes that the viewer must have an emotional connection or the artist wasn’t successful at presenting the idea.  Clive speaks of a representational aesthetic as a system where each work has its own aesthetic therefore evoking a different emotional response in the viewer.  He states that we have no way to identify if something is art other than the feeling we get from it.  His ideas, unfortunately, are slightly one-sided.  He believes that art should tell a story, objects become elements of conveyed emotion, however artists should not use aesthetics to convey information.  The intellectual artist or the political artist, to Clive,  is using aesthetics through a more mathematical formula.  Clive’s aesthetic system should follow an emotional connection to form because form evokes emotion, and any idea that attempts to express any other idea is in using aesthetics in the wrong terms.

• 4    Gabriel // May 29, 2007 at 3:48 pm

  Tolstoy has a completely differant view than that of Plato, because he sees art being part of the human condition, and a means of communicating feelings between one another. According to Tolsoy art can have the power to cause the viewer to experience the mental/emotional condition of the artist. He defines this comunication of emotions as the infectiousness of art. He brings up the concept of counterfeit art, which art that lacks clarity, sincerity, and individuality, and also the power to communicate emotions between the viewer and the Artist. This theory of”counterfeit art” makes sence to me, I think if art is just computor generated or “stiff” that it has less sucess or validity. The authority sits with the spectator according to Tolsoys point of view, depending on the competentcy of him or her to experience the emotions conveyed by the artist. I feel that this point of view is more realistic and is more simular to my own.

• 5    Gabriel // May 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm

  Clive Bells ideas of aesthetics deal more with the sensibility of the viewer being able to understand and appreciate the beauty presented by an artist. I disagree with his theory of a quicker response being insensible, because I find gut reactions to be very sensible and being truer to ones real opinion.

  Bells whole opinion of aesthetic emotions deals with emotion portreyed though beauty, or lack of in art work. I think that political art can have aesthetic value also, whereas Bell think that mixing art and politics is a mistake because it contains real information portreying a message. I feel that all art portreys some kind of message whether it be emotions or a particular view. I think Plato and Bell would agree on the idea of art containing aesthetic power, but with Bell having a positive conotation, where as it’s the opposite with Plato. Plato feeling that art has a dangerous disillusive power, and Bell feels art has “rightness” in its power and a sign of flickering inspitarion in the spectator. In the aspect of his view on the power of the aethetic emotion I agree with Bell, but on much of the other ideas Im not quite sure.

• 6    Carolyn // May 29, 2007 at 6:12 pm

  Bell’s consistent and redundant idea of aesthetic emotion resonates throughout all of the points that are outlined. Aesthetic emotion being, the feelings that are provoked on an individual basis towards, or in response to, a particular piece of work. While he discourages the relationship of art and politics, it seems that he speaks more of a connection that is felt internally, nearly physically. While not every piece of art may be moving in some way, there should be some works that a viewer connects to in a way that is unbiased to the person standing next to them. The feelings and connections he speaks of are more deeply rooted in personal experience, past, present, and future. Furthermore, if this connection, or rather “aesthetic emotion,” is not present for the viewer, than the piece is left with little and nominal value in the eyes of the viewer.

• 7    Kaaren // May 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm

  Tolstoy refers to art as a tool for communication that is more precise than language itself because “whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings” (Section I). He argues that in true art, the audience will experience the same emotion that the artist attempted to transmit when he/she composed the piece of art. He states that “art is based [on the] capacity of man to receive another man’s expression of feeling and experience those feelings” (Section I). I agree for the most part with Tolstoy’s assertion that art is an inevitable condiditon of human life, and also with his idea that art can transmit human emotion more truly than simple conversation. Listening to music or going to a concert can often resonate nostalgia, love, and joy, among other emotions. However if I were asked to describe any of those feelings, I would find myself at a loss for effective words to convey them. On the other hand, many works of art, such as literature and poetry, consist entirely of words, and the manner in which these words are put together often gives them the potential to make an audiene experience deep emotional attachement, similar to that experience in visual art. Tolstoy also describes how human life is “filled with works of art…dress…utensils…church services…monuments” (Section IV). Everywhere we turn we are encountered with creative expressions that touch our emtions. However, I disagree with Tolstoy’s claim that art is defined by the assumption that the artist’s emotion while creating a piece of art will be directly conveyed to that piece of art’s audience. Whatever the emotions of the artist may have been while creating their art, the cirucmstances of the viewer will always and inevitably be different. Each individual viewer will create meaning depending on their social perspective, the way they view the art (ie internet, in museum, etc.), and myriad other conditions. So while art does convey emotion, the particular emotion that is experienced will never be exactly the same between the artist and any particular member of the art’s audience. As Clive Bell notes, “objects that provoke…emtion we call works of art…every work [of art] produces a different emotion” (Section 3).

• 8    Carolyn // May 29, 2007 at 6:23 pm

  I like the idea of differentiating Tolstoy’s ideas of art with that of Plato’s, as mentioned by Gabriel as well as section IV. Whereas Plato discouraged and firmly disagreed with the spawning of ideas from art, Tolstoy encourages and demands it. And much like Bell, Tolstoy’s vision of art relies on the idea of emotion and the way in which it affects a person. Tolstoy further exams the emotional ideal as presenting it as expressions that are felt or exhibited in a dual fashion. The artist or producer of art develops an idea, emotion, or feeling. In return, these ideas, emotions and feelings are transmitted to the viewer, therefore making the ultimate artistic force and the very purpose for art.

• 9    Nicole // May 29, 2007 at 6:43 pm

  Tolstoy is one of my most favored and admired artists; I was easily entrenched in the drama of “Anna Karenina” and “War and Peace.” So when he begins to speak of art as a sucessful communication between persons, and of that arts ability to be evocative of emotion, I readily think of his work with which I am familiar. Tolstoy is both an effective and affective author; he achieves “Art” status through building elaborate relationships between characters. You are so entirely saturated in the details of that persons personal history and emotions, that you cannot help but to believe that you in fact have a significant relationship with that person. Of course this is an illusion of a relationship, what Plato would have us regard as an imitation, a mimesis of a tangible, factual relationship.
  Along these lines and with Tolstoy in mind, I easily connected to Bell’s idea of aesthetic ecstasy. Ecstasy may have a positive connotation, a feeling of extreme good, but I think the definition of “ecstasy” is broader in this context. It may be a feeling or emotion more related to sadness or anger, and yet it is still ecstatic. If I were to attempt to define this moment or climax of emotion achieved in a sucessful work of art, I would say that it had to be a developed communication of idea and representation over time that relates effectively to the personal experiences of the viewer. It is likely that if a character is underdeveloped in a story, if we are unattached, then any dramatic moment submitted by the author will not have great affect on the reader. The protagonist does not often die at the beginning of the story, they will not die until we have reached a time of imitated intimacy with them and their accompanying characters.

• 10    Kevin // May 29, 2007 at 7:11 pm

  Aesthetics to Clive Bell is the emotional quality a piece of art draws out of those it’s presented too. The emotions cast out by a piece of art is localized to that particular person and is unique to the experience of that person, or as he stated “a matter of taste”. The aesthetics of the art are the features that provoke those emotions. At some points the presented has no emotional connection to the art, in that setting it is not art to them. But, when a person views the piece of art and critics the points of emotion provocation they are giving criticism. Making sense of the particular parts, the sum, or the whole portion of a piece and using personal aesthetic to the presented audience is “criticism”. Good critics find the emotion connections and theorize the artistic aesthetics.
  I agree with Clive Bell. I agree with Bell because the essence of art is emotion. To critique a piece of art is to recreate the emotional experience of viewing the art. Art is an emotion vessel, but to each person the idea of art is a different.
  ————————————————————-

  Tolstoy disagrees with Plato that art should be cast out of society, he states that without art man would not exists because art is the foundation that connects the communication of man. He stated that Plato’s ideal that art should be pleasurable that art is, a piece made for pleasure is a false statement. Because art tells the story of all men art should also tell the sorrows of man and past the emotions to create a sensible society.
  In many ways Tolstoy agrees with Plato that art is a powerful vessel where art can create strong or weak emotions. I myself feel that the emotion of art is the reason for its existence.

• 11    Michael // May 31, 2007 at 2:40 am

  Tolstoy believed that art was a form of communication because of how an on-looker is effected emotionally by a piece of art. If there was no connection emited between the on-looker and the artist then the piece of work is not art. Tolstoy says that art creates indications in people by changing the way an on-looker is thinking when they view an artwork. This indication may be a memory, a strange feeling, and also a feeling of communication from the artist. The artist is expressing ideas that will shape a theory into the mind of an on-looker and how beautiful it is according a view of aesthetics. The on-looker may be “united to the artist” to the point where people have the real emotion that the artist was trying to convey.

Leave a Comment