Scan barcode
cs1887's review against another edition
4.0
I disagree with a lot of what he says but why is he so funny when he says it stop it Tolstoy!!
thexwalrus's review against another edition
challenging
4.0
i disagreed with about 60% of the points tolstoy brought up in this work, but that's why i'm rating it as high as i am. it made me think and challenged me and i feel like i have a fuller understanding of my own feelings towards art, even though i thought i understood those feelings pretty well before!
tolstoy has a pretty puritanical view of art that i can't vibe with - the only "good art" is art that promotes the "christian consciousness" and he takes time to tell us that catholicism is a bastardization of christianity and does not count, which was an aside i wasn't expecting. but he also brings up that art should be accessible to all, that the commodification of art harms art itself, and that art is a vital organ and a vital method of communicating for humanity. i agree with all those points!
he cites poems and symphonies and composers he thinks are "unintelligible" and the poetry made me laugh - it's base-level symbolism from like, senior year honors english. it's the easiest symbolism to understand, tolstoy, you good? he also has the audacity to say confidently that beethoven's 9th symphony is "unquestionably" bad art, which made me laugh because the knowledge that the catholic church uses the final movement from beethoven's 9th as a hymn in their masses would probably kill the man.
he spends a lot of time talking about how sexual lasciviousness is permeating art and making it worse, but a few pages earlier he's praising victor hugo (and victor hugo was a fan of sexual lasciviousness, iykyk). he calls his own writing bad. he talks about how art can only be made if people do "the labor that is right for man to do" which is very "you have to be miserable to make art" and Not Necessary. he calls monet, one of my favorite painters of all time, bad and a counterfeit artist. but that's what made this enjoyable to read for me. i was either arguing with tolstoy in my head, nodding along because he was making good points, or laughing at him for how he looked so unfavorably on art that has withstood the test of time and has reached me, a lower class disabled woman in the future who, in his eyes, would never understand that art.
if you have any interest in media literacy or art as a medium (especially in regards to keeping AI art bros out of the art scene) i think this is an invaluable read - even if you're gonna be laughing at tolstoy's points for a lot of it.
tolstoy has a pretty puritanical view of art that i can't vibe with - the only "good art" is art that promotes the "christian consciousness" and he takes time to tell us that catholicism is a bastardization of christianity and does not count, which was an aside i wasn't expecting. but he also brings up that art should be accessible to all, that the commodification of art harms art itself, and that art is a vital organ and a vital method of communicating for humanity. i agree with all those points!
he cites poems and symphonies and composers he thinks are "unintelligible" and the poetry made me laugh - it's base-level symbolism from like, senior year honors english. it's the easiest symbolism to understand, tolstoy, you good? he also has the audacity to say confidently that beethoven's 9th symphony is "unquestionably" bad art, which made me laugh because the knowledge that the catholic church uses the final movement from beethoven's 9th as a hymn in their masses would probably kill the man.
he spends a lot of time talking about how sexual lasciviousness is permeating art and making it worse, but a few pages earlier he's praising victor hugo (and victor hugo was a fan of sexual lasciviousness, iykyk). he calls his own writing bad. he talks about how art can only be made if people do "the labor that is right for man to do" which is very "you have to be miserable to make art" and Not Necessary. he calls monet, one of my favorite painters of all time, bad and a counterfeit artist. but that's what made this enjoyable to read for me. i was either arguing with tolstoy in my head, nodding along because he was making good points, or laughing at him for how he looked so unfavorably on art that has withstood the test of time and has reached me, a lower class disabled woman in the future who, in his eyes, would never understand that art.
if you have any interest in media literacy or art as a medium (especially in regards to keeping AI art bros out of the art scene) i think this is an invaluable read - even if you're gonna be laughing at tolstoy's points for a lot of it.
coffeedragon's review against another edition
4.0
Considering this is a classics book and nonfiction, I was surprised I ended up enjoying this book as much as I did. I imagine it has to do with the subject being something I’m truly interested in but also the tone of the book was rather hilarious. Like the back of the book mentions, Tolstoy doesn’t care if you’re some upper class educated guy or some peasant on the street. If he doesn’t think your work or thought process is clear enough, you’re going to get insulted. And it’s hilarious! I didn’t think books like these even knew what the word entertaining was
Aside from it being a funny read, this book ended up being educational for me. It’s structured in a way that even if you didn’t know anything about art, you could understand what he was trying to argue. Tolstoy tells us how the “uneducated” define art and how beauty is not a good way to define “good art”. He goes on to talk about how the term beauty is used in different cultures and based on that, he concludes that while something beautiful can be art, art isn’t just something beautiful. In fact, he mentions that we’ve been so caught up in defining art as something beautiful that it has delayed an actual definition from being created
Through the 200+ pages of this book, the biggest takeaway I got was that art (real and true art) is the transmission of the artist’s emotions through his/her craft to the viewer. And depending on how sincere, unique, and clear those emotions are, the better the work of art is. He also talks about the subject matter being another component of good art and how if it coincides with the religious perception of the given time and society, art is considered good art. At the time the book was published, Tolstoy clearly indicates that the religious perception is Christianity and goes on to argue that Christian art is true and good art
Since I’m an agnostic, the thought that something that wasn’t Christian was bad art seemed unacceptable and confusing. Confusing because he mentions an example of music where Beethoven’s 101st sonata was not true art because it failed to transmit feelings to the audience but a song of happiness sung by a “peasant woman” for someone’s return home was true art because it infected anyone who listened to it with happiness. But then Tolstoy mentions that by Christian art he means art that “lies in the growth of brotherhood among all men”. This I could understand and agree on
Overall I really enjoyed picking up this book. It was clear about the argument and practically walked us through examples of why something was good art while other things were bad art. Tolstoy also mentions a “future art” and I thought his deductions were interesting because some of it lines up with what art is today. The only thing I thought was redundant about the essay were certain parts where he keeps repeating himself. Since it’s an essay I figured it was inevitable to repeat certain points but sometimes he’ll repeat it in the same paragraph. Still, it wasn’t too bad
Aside from it being a funny read, this book ended up being educational for me. It’s structured in a way that even if you didn’t know anything about art, you could understand what he was trying to argue. Tolstoy tells us how the “uneducated” define art and how beauty is not a good way to define “good art”. He goes on to talk about how the term beauty is used in different cultures and based on that, he concludes that while something beautiful can be art, art isn’t just something beautiful. In fact, he mentions that we’ve been so caught up in defining art as something beautiful that it has delayed an actual definition from being created
Through the 200+ pages of this book, the biggest takeaway I got was that art (real and true art) is the transmission of the artist’s emotions through his/her craft to the viewer. And depending on how sincere, unique, and clear those emotions are, the better the work of art is. He also talks about the subject matter being another component of good art and how if it coincides with the religious perception of the given time and society, art is considered good art. At the time the book was published, Tolstoy clearly indicates that the religious perception is Christianity and goes on to argue that Christian art is true and good art
Since I’m an agnostic, the thought that something that wasn’t Christian was bad art seemed unacceptable and confusing. Confusing because he mentions an example of music where Beethoven’s 101st sonata was not true art because it failed to transmit feelings to the audience but a song of happiness sung by a “peasant woman” for someone’s return home was true art because it infected anyone who listened to it with happiness. But then Tolstoy mentions that by Christian art he means art that “lies in the growth of brotherhood among all men”. This I could understand and agree on
Overall I really enjoyed picking up this book. It was clear about the argument and practically walked us through examples of why something was good art while other things were bad art. Tolstoy also mentions a “future art” and I thought his deductions were interesting because some of it lines up with what art is today. The only thing I thought was redundant about the essay were certain parts where he keeps repeating himself. Since it’s an essay I figured it was inevitable to repeat certain points but sometimes he’ll repeat it in the same paragraph. Still, it wasn’t too bad
monteirosluisa's review against another edition
3.0
Having never read Tolstoi before, this seemed like an interesting start since knowing his perspective about art in general would make me understand his own work better, especially his novels.
This being said, I was clearly not ready for this book. The amount of research I had to do in order to understand his ideas about some writers, musicians, painters, sculptures, etc. (or at least know who he was talking about) was, at times, overwhelming, which made me fall behind on schedule to finish the book.
Another negative aspect about it is the way he explains what he thinks about the topic: what he states is clearly biased by the time-frame he lived in, which was extremely different from the 21st century and that's maybe the reason why I didn't empathize with some of his arguments.
Even though I am giving this book only 3 stars, it is still a very interesting reading since it not only shows Tolstoi's perspective about a very important topic, but also educates the reader about more artists of his time.
I would say it is still worth it to read this book if you are interested in knowing more about art.
This being said, I was clearly not ready for this book. The amount of research I had to do in order to understand his ideas about some writers, musicians, painters, sculptures, etc. (or at least know who he was talking about) was, at times, overwhelming, which made me fall behind on schedule to finish the book.
Another negative aspect about it is the way he explains what he thinks about the topic: what he states is clearly biased by the time-frame he lived in, which was extremely different from the 21st century and that's maybe the reason why I didn't empathize with some of his arguments.
Even though I am giving this book only 3 stars, it is still a very interesting reading since it not only shows Tolstoi's perspective about a very important topic, but also educates the reader about more artists of his time.
I would say it is still worth it to read this book if you are interested in knowing more about art.
hades9stages's review against another edition
3.0
A philosophical treatise published in 1897, here Tolstoy explores the nature, purpose, and significance of art. He delves into defining true art and its role in society, aiming to distinguish between what he considers "good" and "bad" art.
In What Is Art? Tolstoy argues that genuine art serves a moral purpose, emphasizing the importance of art's ability to convey authentic emotions and moral truths. Tolstoy's emphasis on moral and didactic aspects of art limits its scope and overlooks the complexities and diversity of artistic expression. He criticises elitist or inaccessible art that prioritizes technical skill or aesthetics over its ability to genuinely connect with and uplift the masses- arguably restricting artistic freedom and diversity.
Tolstoy's work remains influential due to its thought-provoking examination of art's purpose and social function. He challenges traditional views on aesthetics, asserting that genuine art should not only evoke emotions but also inspire moral growth and empathy within society. Tolstoy's emphasis on the moral responsibility of artists and their duty to create art for the common good continues to spark debates on the nature of art and its role in society.
One notable figure who expressed admiration for Tolstoy's views was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy's philosophy of non-violence and simple living and was known to appreciate Tolstoy's thoughts on art and its moral significance.
Leo Tolstoy, renowned for his novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina, had a profound impact on literature and philosophy. His experiences, particularly his spiritual and moral transformation later in life, greatly influenced the writing of What Is Art?. Tolstoy's disillusionment with the aristocratic circles and societal norms of his time led him to explore deeper philosophical questions about human existence, morality, and the purpose of life. These personal reflections on morality and the human condition deeply influenced his thoughts on art and its significance in society.
In What Is Art? Tolstoy argues that genuine art serves a moral purpose, emphasizing the importance of art's ability to convey authentic emotions and moral truths. Tolstoy's emphasis on moral and didactic aspects of art limits its scope and overlooks the complexities and diversity of artistic expression. He criticises elitist or inaccessible art that prioritizes technical skill or aesthetics over its ability to genuinely connect with and uplift the masses- arguably restricting artistic freedom and diversity.
Tolstoy's work remains influential due to its thought-provoking examination of art's purpose and social function. He challenges traditional views on aesthetics, asserting that genuine art should not only evoke emotions but also inspire moral growth and empathy within society. Tolstoy's emphasis on the moral responsibility of artists and their duty to create art for the common good continues to spark debates on the nature of art and its role in society.
One notable figure who expressed admiration for Tolstoy's views was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy's philosophy of non-violence and simple living and was known to appreciate Tolstoy's thoughts on art and its moral significance.
Leo Tolstoy, renowned for his novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina, had a profound impact on literature and philosophy. His experiences, particularly his spiritual and moral transformation later in life, greatly influenced the writing of What Is Art?. Tolstoy's disillusionment with the aristocratic circles and societal norms of his time led him to explore deeper philosophical questions about human existence, morality, and the purpose of life. These personal reflections on morality and the human condition deeply influenced his thoughts on art and its significance in society.
silkecurr's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.0
Tolstoy would hate Nicki Minaj so much