Dana Reynolds - Tolstoy

“Just as people who think that the aim and purpose of food is pleasure cannot perceive the true meaning of eating, so people who think that the aim of art is pleasure cannot perceive the true meaning of eating, so people who think that the aim of art is pleasure cannot know its meaning and purpose, because they ascribe to an activity which has meaning in connection with other phenomena of life the false and exclusive aim of pleasure. People understand that the meaning of eating is the nourishment of the body only when they cease to consider pleasure the aim of this activity. So it is with art. People will understand the meaning of art only when they cease to regard beauty – that is, pleasure – as the aim of this activity. To recognize beauty, or the certain kind of pleasure to be derived from art, as the aim of art, not only does not contribute to defining what art is, but, on the contrary, by transferring the question to a realm quite alien to art – to metaphysical, psychological, physiological, and even historical discussions of why such-and-such a work is pleasing to some, and such-and-such is not pleasing, or is pleasing to others – makes the definition impossible. And just as discussing why one person likes pears and another meat in no way helps to define what the essence of nourishment is, so, too, the resolution of questions of taste in art (to which all discussions or art involuntarily come down) not only does not contribute to understanding what makes up that particular human activity which we call art, but makes that understanding completely impossible.” Leo Tolstoy, What is Art?, Pg 35

I find this passage fascinating, and a particularly apt description of what is wrong with trying to define the category of art by the definition of beauty. Tolstoy earlier in his book lists the definitions of beauty of many other philosophers, and proceeds to deconstruct them, and list why he thinks that they are wrong. He comes to the conclusion (eventually) that there is only one accurate description of beauty, distilled from two different perspectives of it. All beauty is an un-lustful sensation of pleasure, whether it is from the considered object itself or the perception of the pure, perfect and holy through the considered object. Not everyone will find the same things beautiful, or even find them pleasing in the same way. Art cannot be defined by beauty, therefore, because it is all a matter of personal opinion, then. But if one were to ask anyone, they would tell you that art is beautiful. Art needs another definition, because to one person, what might be considered art would be totally ruled out by another, which leaves an empty collection if one would add up all the exclusions of those living in the world. So then, art must be defined by something else that the concept of beauty. Tolstoy in this passage suggests that art serves as a type of nourishment for a person, nearly in the same way as food does, except for one’s spirit. For an individual, there will typically be one type of art that one can identify with more closely than others, and can draw their primary nourishment from that, but that does not make other types of art invalid.