I’m referring specifically to what you have been presenting since the OP. Specifically the inadequacy of this frame which is saying exactly what I wrote:
It’s probably not worth continuing to discuss it. You like this idea, I think it’s inadequate and 19th century romanticism. Does it really matter? No.
There could be aspects that I’ve not considered carefully enough but I think creativity and aesthetic experience are two essential elements, and perhaps the only two, as far as I’m concerned.
Creativity and aesthetic experience are not terribly limiting. I’m thinking that the only way art could be considered not truly created is if it were recognized as nothing more than a copy. Also, literally anything can be viewed aesthetically.
I think you’ve missed my initial point: I listed creativity and aesthetic experience as two qualities unnecessarily limited if we just said emotion and energy (for instance) were all there was to art.
Yes, I think almost anything can be art if presented in a certain way, so I suspect context, judgement, inspiration, invention, technique and others belong in the list too.
Yes. Crafts or folk arts are very interesting to me. Some neighbors have garden crafts that I admire. Incidentally, not too long ago I picked up a couple of small paintings done in folk art style by an artist who signed them “Wendy”.
totally! Minimalist art and conceptual art are, to me, code words for this kind of expression that leaves the art enthusiasts themselves uncertain.
But not everything that can be viewed aesthetically is art. Some people see roads as aesthetically pleasing. But roads have strict construction regulations not amenable to curating.
Art, to me, is always subject to curation.
Leo’s compatriots were not particularly known for art except as pressed for propaganda (murals, portraits, photographs, etc.), which could be displayed at important public spots/buildings/homes of people. I conjecture that Leo was influenced to some extent by French and peninsular Italian culture, but wished to offer a unique POV that identified him as a force to reckon with in the world, put his clan on the map so to speak. Conspicuously he avoids the aesthetic and creative aspects of art and focuses on the artist’s infectious feelings. His perspective probably reflects his Eastern European origins.
This is not accurate. The 19th century is often referred to as the “Golden Age of Russian Literature”
Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov…
IMO, this more comes from his Russian heritage. War and Peace contrasts authentic Russian people with the contrived aristocracy -
Throughout the novel, Tolstoy contrasts aristocratic Russia (which is European-influenced, contrived, and often pretentious) and traditional Russia (which is more instinctual, more honest, and more authentic overall). Aristocrats aspire to “European” traits, like an obsession with French culture and the adoption of complicated German war strategies. However, these don’t work well in the long run—or at least they can’t suppress authentically “Russian” instincts in the novel’s characters … (Tolstoy suggests) that Russia and its people thrive when they’re true to their own culture and values, instead of importing foreign ideas that tend to undermine what Russian people know best.
I seem to have forgotten that literature is art. I’ve read only translations of Russian works; unless the translator managed to faithfully copy Russian literary elements I couldn’t have formed the right impression of Russian writing. I’ll however defer to the wisdom of other great writers who’ve said things like, “if the world could write itself, it would write like Tolstoy”, “A novel by Tolstoy is not a work of art, but a piece of life”, about Tolstoy. William Faulkner, when asked to list the 3 greatest novels, replied, “Anna Karenina, Anna Karenina, Anna Karenina.” It looks as though reading Tolstoy is a vital part of one’s literacy, one’s life.
An unsolved mystery is, Tolstoy was never awarded a Nobel despite being nominated multiple times.
Some important Tolstoy facts that might help us understand him better:
Russians were also great composers: Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Rimsy-Korsakov and others. Diaghilev, Nijinsky and Pavlova ushered in Russia’s domination of ballet.
Tolstoy’s definition fits well with a utilitarian turn in art. His anarchist sympathies seem to have spilled over into his writings. There’s a message he wants to convey, about Russia and its people, and that seems to require a faithful transmission of his feelings. It’s a form of social critique, something I alluded to in my first post, intended perhaps to inform people. His skills as a writer was the cherry on top.
Perhaps “art” requires intent, which requires both intelligence and consciousness. A person who is brain dead or otherwise severely neurologically damaged who may or may not will or know they are moving their arms may grab something and produce a physical, tangible expression that can be observed.
That is not to say anything observable or knowable cannot possess artistic qualities that rival anything anyone has created or ever will create.
If I draw a line a simple black line a piece of white paper and call it “Lineage of Man”, is that art because I say it is? What if I built a machine that is only capable of drawing simple black lines and place a sheet of paper in front of it, thus producing the same effect. Is the resulting image not a direct act of my will and desire to produce art?
We like to assume presence of emotion. Is a lion who kills the cubs of a rival lion “art”? It certainly parallels with emotion and intent as humans experience. Or is merely the empty machinations of a biological machine?
Many things to unpack here. We as a species are certainly chronically understaffed as far as those qualified or who otherwise posses an ability to.
Fair enough. I guess I could find mediums to fit these same descriptions for myself. For me, it’s more the content though. Caravaggio brings me to tears semi-regularly.
Banksy and Pollack seem like morons. C’est la vie 
The nature of art..
Where does Tolstoy claim that his emotional interpretation of art is the definitive, incontrovertible, universal definition of art?
Tolstoy was a literary artist and his opinion would’ve been, to that extent, specific to that artform with the possibility of vague applicability to painting/sculpting/origami/etc.
Perhaps Tolstoy was only offering Tolstoy’s experiences as a writer; it wasn’t “Tolstoy knows this is art”, it was “Tolstoy thinks this is art.”
I’m not Tolstoy so can only guess what his intent was, but as far as I’m not too far off the mark I think I’m safe. Upon thinking further I’ve come to the conclusion that writing - Tolstoy’s preferred medium - is where it all bottom lines.
I almost mentioned Pollock here too. haha.
I think art can be any perceptible thing produced by any living/once lived being. I think we are the main limitor of what’s art and what’s not.
I admittedly don’t have a lot of philosophy background so I apologize if this is a bit shallow
I disagree. This would suggest the best way to interpret art would be through either cross examining or psychoanalyzing the author. As in, what is meant by a poem? Just ask the writer.
Should I interpret art in a way meaningful to me, but I should be told I’m wrong by the author despite the experience or interpretation being meaningful to me? The author should hold tyranny over the meaning?
But don’t misunderstand. I’m not suggesting subjectivism, as if there is no right or wrong, but all just preference and personal meanings. That is to say the art is the meaning or truth tapped in by the author whether the author knows it or not, consciously or subconsciously.
And the word “author” should give pause because what of the art without clear authorship? What is the intent of folklore passed down by generation with modification along the way? How do decipher intent of author if there are thousands of authors with different intents?
So what is art? I don’t offer it physical or metaphysical constitution, but it holds to a truth. It is a display of the collective unconscious of humanity, which is that meaning or significance that underlies our sense if significance.
The beholder is all of us, not just you or me.
I think what I meant to say was it requires an intelligence to be considered art. I don’t think what AI produces should count as art for example, despite the fact it produces mesmerizing things, many of which surpass human artists both living and dead. But perhaps an exception can be made since artificial intelligence is an intelligence nonetheless. It is a direct result of human creation and input both passive and quasi-active, after all.
Here’s what I mean. Imagine yourself as a waiter who happens to take a tumble one fateful day spilling a deluge of food and drink upon a struggling artist’s table and coating his canvas he brought with him in an array of color and texture. Suddenly, he looks at it and finds an immense beauty in the random haphazard arrangement of ill-fated food product and sells it for a million dollars. I wouldn’t consider this art. It’s a thing that possesses artistic qualities, absolutely.
I use this example because some years back I had an ornate dining plate on the kitchen table that I made a sandwich (or something) on and the next day something about it struck me as odd. The arrangements of the condiments and sauces gave it a speckled appearance that seemed intentional. As if it was something you would find in a museum. I was like “Huh. I hope I’m not just going crazy.” I still have that plate today, mind you. Unless it was the one that broke. That tends to happen to things that possess ephemeral beauty unsuitable for this world, I notice.
But I’m reminded of “Fountain” by Duchamp. Despite it being a literal urinal, and perhaps the folly or nature of the human mind to associate it with something undesirable, it is actually a beautiful piece of human innovation. I might consider that art because, though it was not made to be exhibited or admired as art, it certainly has admirable qualities that hearken back to the ingenuity and will to persevere of the human spirit. If that makes sense.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and that’s all there is to it, of course. But that’s my view and I believe I’ve been able to reasonably justify it.
imo, it needs to have some meaning. Otherwise, anything perceptible includes a good, loud fart.
a good loud fart is funny though. or can it be limited to making us feel something?
And if used as a musical instrument, it becomes art.
Just for fun, I googled “the metaphysics of farts” and found that indeed there are writings on that topic.
One began -
Le Petomane performed at the Moulin Rouge in the 1890s to the great and good of the day, such as Sigmund Freud, the Prince of Wales, and the King of Belgium. His art was musical farting. He perfected musical farting into an art form. And there are still musical farting performances today. There is an Austrian duet, for example, who dress in formal evening wear with long coat and tails, but the trousers have a discrete hole through which the instrument can be played.
The article continued -
So, we have a conflict between two views of the metaphysics of farts: the essential-bum-origin view and the phenomenological view. On the essential-bum-origin view, we smell farts , whereas on the phenomenological view, we fart smells .
I believe that’s a great definition of art, however, I think talent is a factor or implied. I also would like to think about amateur artists, who don’t have training. Will they convey as much? And classically trained artists, have they had their minds altered by the rules?