Tolstoy’s theory of art seems very relatable to me as a recreational jazz piano player. Whenever I engage in a musical performance I measure its quality based off of the audience’s response. Particularly after improvisation, my feelings of success depend on the hope that I transmitted the spontaneous feelings I felt during the performance to my audience.
Thoughts of this kind lead us straight to Tolstoy’s definition of art:
“Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them”
As much as I can relate to this picture, I still think that it misses a large aspect of the artistic world. So, I will be investigating my assertion that Tolstoy’s definition of art is too demanding, specifically in regards to this requirement of transmissibility and infectiousness. This will be done by elaborating on what is meant by “too demanding” and then exploring different shortcomings of his view, one at a time.
It seems worthwhile to elaborate on what I mean by “too demanding”. A definition of art is meant to serve as a point of reference that allows us to separate non-artistic matters from artistic matters. Some people may see this distinction as purely linguistic, but to others this same distinction can reasonably represent a more fundamental way in which the universe is organized (at least from a human point of view). To say that a specific definition of art is too demanding is to say that it identifies fewer artistic matters as art than actually exist. Therefore, to show that Tolstoy’s view is too demanding requires examples of art that seem universally agreed upon but do not satisfy Tolstoy’s conditions. Naturally, several iterations of such an example could be construed, showing that his definition is too demanding as it identifies fewer instances of art than actually exist.
Tolstoy’s definition states that a transfer or infection of feeling has to occur from one person to another. Most people agree that they can have an artistic experience on their own, so Tolstoy’s view falls short and fails to include these instances of art. When I play piano alone, I play it in a very unorganized way. I often start with a simple blues progression and start improvising with my right hand. Naturally, I become more experimental on my own and end up trying new things like a different chord progression, which can turn into a very meaningful personal experience. It is worth noting that one could dissolve this issue by interpreting myself (the solo piano player) as both the author and the audience at the same time. This way there is a successful transmission/infection, yet in a more personal way than when it occurs between multiple people.
Another shortcoming is that the interpretation of art, or at least the feelings elicited by art, can be said to be a contingent phenomenon insofar as it can occur differently for different people. Cultural circumstances definitely influence the way we interpret symbols. For example, pointing the front of your thumb can cause a British person to smile and an Australian person to sock you in the face. The same symbol is interpreted in completely different ways because of the social meanings attached to each of them in their respective contexts. Art seems to act this way too. My perceptual/conceptual experience of Serrano’s “Piss Christ” is most definitely different to the Pope’s. So, Tolstoy’s theory of art seems to require some objective reference point of meaning by which one can measure whether the recipient of the art and the artist are in fact being moved in similar ways - which seems unlikely when all we have to work with are subjective viewpoints. So, contingent interpretation causes difficulties in identifying art which is a problem for Tolstoy because it makes his view less useful for identifying art.
There also seem to be other limitations to define art with Tolstoy’s view. How can you know when successful transmission/infection takes place? (anselm, IV. A) It is obvious in the case of the artistic audience. On the other hand, it is hard for the author to know if he is successfully producing art. After all, under his view, playing the piano ceases to be art once transmission/infection stops taking place, which most obviously occurs when there is no audience. Is it not an interesting feature of Tolstoy’s view that it causes an artist to doubt whether he is currently successfully producing art or simply performing a mechanical act. After all, if he manages to infect the audience with his emotion through an artistic process but the audience gives him no sign of that success, he can no longer see himself as an artist under Tolstoy’s view. This places incredibly high demands on the willingness and ability to communicate between author and audience which requires both an author who is able to interpret people universally and also an audience which communicates in some universally interpretable way.
A similar problem arises when people interpret something when there is nothing to be interpreted (anselm, IV. A). For example, I may burst a ketchup bottle in my dining room, leaving a large red splotch on the wall. A guest might see this splotch at some point (assuming that I never clean it out of laziness) and think it a remarkably beautiful splotch - ‘a contemporary gem of its own’ the guest might say. Tolstoy seems to lack the means to consolidate this spontaneous occurrence of an artistic experience because there is no transmission of emotion from the author to the audience. Instead, this example suggests that the author’s emotion can be irrelevant when appreciating something as art (even if the author does not see it as such) and so gives yet another way in which Tolstoy’s criteria do not capture all instances of art.
There is another key aspect to Tolstoy’s view which can easily fall under criticism. In the phrase quoted in the introduction, there is the implication that Tolstoy imagines certain constraints on what is to be transferred/infected from the author to the audience. Namely, the “... feelings he has lived through”. It seems likely for a philosopher taking the opposing view to take improvisational art as a great counterexample to this criterion art. Improvisational art occurs spontaneously in the present. One could make the argument that it is heavily influenced by past events and historical circumstance. After all, improvisation for a jazz musician can only be conjured up by the theoretical groundwork that he first had to study for. However, this justification of Tolstoy’s restriction does not fully account for the idea that a spontaneous artistic activity builds on itself in a unique and chaotic way. Even though certain past-events influence what is available to the artist at the moment of improvisation, it is incredibly hard for anyone (especially the author himself) to predict what will be played. In addition, this attribute of unique spontaneity can lead to the creation of entirely new feelings within the author. Therefore, it seems Tolstoy is asking for too much when he requires art to be a transmission of previously created feelings as opposed to a combined creation of new feelings through an interplay between artist and audience. After all, there is a massive part of the artistic world which focuses on just that.
There appear to be several reasons that point out why Tolstoy’s definition of art is too strict. Firstly, it neglects to acknowledge personal artistic experiences. Secondly, it is weak as a definition insofar as it has trouble identifying art in certain situations. Thirdly, it does not allow for unintentional artistic experiences. Lastly, it also rules out the value of artistic improvisation. So, it seems that there are several reasons to think that his view of art is too strict.
Sources
Tolstoy, Leo. What Is Art? New York: Bobbs-Merrill, Liberal Arts, 1960. Print.
"Tolstoy on Art." Tolstoy on Art. Anselm. Web. 05 Mar. 2016. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-tolstoy-banach.htm