Art as Language

Tolstoy describes art as a form of language. It is a way that people communicate the emotions they have experienced to other people. If art is a language, does that mean that people have to learn not only to create it but to understand it? When people teach art in the classroom, they are teaching how to make it in the same way one might teach how to speak or write in a language. In a language class, though, people are also taught how to listen to the speech and how to read as well as how to speak or write. Without all of these skills one will never learn the language. It would seem to follow that people would need lessons in art comprehension before they could understand what the artist is trying to say. It would hardly be fair to condemn a piece of literature in German because it does not impact English speakers emotionally and other art that is not language specific might be the same way.

                If this is true, than art should be judged by whether people who “understand its language” are infected by the emotions the artist intends and not by just anybodies response. This puts less stress on the artist who is not expected to be able to infect even people who profess to hate art, but only those who are inclined to understand. On the other hand, it reduces the viewership of art to those who have taken classes on it or studied it. It also makes art into something for the educated and not for the common man. Limiting art to the realm of the educated seems to be a mistake, but so does accepting only art that can infect people with emotions. In the latter case many pieces of art that are commonly well regarded would be considered bad art because it is asking a lot for people to not only see the emotion in the art, but to actually experience it for themselves.

                Is art expected to instill emotions in people or is receiving impressions of emotions sufficient to make it good art?

Tolstoy and Art

Tolstoy’s definition of art requires that the artist intend to infect another with an emotion and that the viewer is effectively infected. This seems like a difficult task to accomplish. It also eliminates taste as a factor in art. The entire world could like the look of one painting, but unless they became emotionally infected they could not call it art. The idea of infecting people with emotions provides art with a lot of power if it is true. It would mean that looking at a painting that is intended to show anger will actually make you angry. It would mean that surrounding people with certain art would be an excellent form of propaganda. If you want people to go to war, surround them with art that evokes anger and hate of those people. This art would also be good art according to Tolstoy’s definition because art “is that human activity which consists in one man’s consciously conveying to others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, and in others being infected by those feelings and also experiencing them”(108). One concern would be art’s infection creating an epidemic. This possibility that art could change the emotional outlook of a people for the worse, especially if they were constantly surrounded by art that provoked negative emotions, is a cause for concern if Tolstoy’s definition of art and its abilities is accurate. Of course, he does not specify the amount of time that art infects people. If someone hears a song and for a few seconds they are infected with an emotion it will not likely have a very strong impact. Another unaddressed issue is art’s lasting impact on the same person in multiple viewings or hearings. If one song infects me emotionally once for a few seconds than this would fit his definition of art, but would not seem to be a problem for emotionally leading people. If one song infects someone for hours each time they listen to it, then art becomes a dangerous way of controlling people. People are often guided by emotions and Tolstoy’s definition seems to give artists the potential to control the audience’s emotions. Tolstoy finds art is a positive aspect of society but this conclusion does not seem to be the only natural progression from his analysis.

                How powerful do you think art is over people and their actions?  

Response to Andrea's Question about whether skill is needed in art

Knowing different skills in art does make you a better artist. Art skills have been developed over long periods of time and increasingly allow individuals to make more accurate representations of the world around us. These are important skills and create interesting art. An individual does not have to use them to create good art, but someone who can only draw a couple of things is limited in the expression of their ideas. The more skills they have the more capable they are of creating representations in whatever way they choose to do so. If they do not have the skills, they are limited in what they can try. Having done some video editing work, I can say that I do not always design things the way a teacher may have suggested but I am able to use what they taught and incorporate them into my own way of doing things. For most people, they can only go so far without someone to teach them. That does not mean that people who do not go to school are worse artists necessarily but learning the skills helps most people’s development. One could say the same thing about philosophy. I do not need to know what philosophers have thought to think with a philosophical mind set, but my ideas will only progress so far if I do not read and hear other people’s opinions. I may never get beyond a flaw in my logic that I could see if I read someone else’s opinion. An artist’s work may never become more interesting, if they do not learn what others have thought in their chosen medium. Everyone can benefit from attempting to improve and one of the best ways to do so is through education. People often enjoy the challenge in learning new ways to do something they enjoy and it helps them develop. We have seen people sing, dance, draw, and play an instrument that lack training. In most cases we do not enjoy their creations. People also develop confidence and pride once they have skill and then feel more comfortable adapting and trying new things.

Should an artist only expose themselves to what they consider good art or is there something worth from all forms of art? Should an artist attempt to focus on learning about their medium or can learning about other mediums be just as helpful?

Landscapes and other art

Are landscapes an imitation of an imitation? They could be described as the creation by God or the gods of an idea that came from them. This seems problematic though because if a god developed the idea and created it they are imitating their own concept, and imitation is usually described as copying someone else. Then if an artist paints a landscape, it would only be an imitation because they are copying only a higher power and not the middle figure of the craftsperson. This does not change the meaning of Plato’s idea because the purpose of the landscape would still be to the emotions. It would also still be the same idea as holding up a mirror. It creates the illusion of three dimensional space without having it. Films and television also create the illusion of three dimensions while having only two and usually serve the purpose of appealing to the emotions. They can serve other purposes though. A documentary can expose people to different ideas and forms of reasoning, but it is imitating either the people that choose to be interviewed, the aspects of nature it includes, or the crafts involved. An abstract film is not based on any previously developed form and comes directly from an idea. The film The Critic pokes fun at this quality be showing abstract images and adding a voice over saying things like “I think this is symbolic. I think this is symbolic of junk.” His confusion is based upon his not understanding film based on form and not imitation. The concepts that Plato expresses are not as clear as they may appear at first glance. Landscape art surely existed at the time he was writing, yet even this does not seem to clearly fit into his definition of art.

If God has an idea and creates something based on it is he imitating his own idea?

Some potential flaws in Plato's theory

Plato describes three stages of form where art is the third and therefore an imitation of an imitation. Form as the idea is the first, the second is craft and art is the third and final. An obvious exception to this is modern art which does not appear to directly copy any craft and seems to follow form more directly. Another issue with this is certain crafts. Many people would consider model ships as more of a craft than an art. It is a skilled work that involves the use of materials like wood. It is in Plato’s theory clearly an imitation of an imitation. Model ships imitate the look and design of ships and often are smaller scale models of specific vessels. This would mean that a craft can also be an imitation of an imitation while art does not have to be. There is also the assumption that being an imitation of an imitation means that something is useless and only appeals the emotions. Sales people often used to have small scale models of homes and other large items so they could show potential owners exactly what their purchase would look like before they bought it. This is an obvious imitation of an imitation but it is useful. When someone translates a text into another language they are imitating the original which is based on an idea. This is an imitation of an imitation. Yet these texts can teach us a lot about others reasoning and practical information.

Is Plato’s conception of art too outdated to be useful in the modern world, is it correct, or are the basic principles worth incorporating into modern theories of art?    

Emotion and Reason

Plato’s theory of art provides an interesting explanation of art’s place in society. Finding that art is simply an imitation of already created forms, Plato reasons that art serves no practical purpose in society. In its appeal to the emotions, which most would agree is an integral part of art; it actually detracts from society as it distracts people from reason. An obvious question that develops through this explanation is whether reason is always superior to emotions. The question itself means that reason and emotion are separate categories that we have the ability to choose between. Often we use reason to help our emotional state. An individual might reason through various options of how to spend their day and base their decision on which would make them happiest. People do not usually choose a holiday vacation based on which picture makes them feel better, they look at various options, their costs, and the activities available and then decide which they like more. Emotions can also lead people to make positive decisions. If one sees an injured animal and takes care of it they are probably acting on an emotional response. Reason might tell them that the animal will be a lot of work and they already have a lot of responsibility. Reason might also tell them that animals suffer and suffering is a negative state so they should help it, but this decision would only be made if one understood the emotional state of suffering. That means emotions are necessary for helping others. This mean emotions and reason probably should not be separated on two ends of a spectrum where emotions are to be discouraged. Another problem with removing emotions is that they are naturally part of the human experience is that they are still a part of us. If people do not express their emotions they are likely to come out at various and perhaps inappropriate times. If a person is angry at someone and never says anything, they may end up taking that anger out on a friend or family member. They will not mean to, but it will still happen. I do not believe that it is possible to remove emotions, only to not act on them in specific situations. And the emotional response that is not acted on is still there. People cannot choose to no longer feel.   

Can someone be a good person without feeling any emotions?     

Response to Sean's Question: Does art need to be created by a living being and not a higher power to be considered art?

I do believe that art has to be created by a living being and not a higher power although a person may believe that god is working through them. Art needs to be created by someone according to most definitions. Three that were easily found on the internet were: The product of human creativity, the creation of beautiful or significant things and the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. All of these involve actively making something but only the first specifies humans. One could then argue that nature is art if one firmly believes in god. They could say that nature is art created by god. This is irrelevant to people who do not believe in god because then nature is beautiful without having a creator and does not fit any of the major definitions of art. Art is certainly often inspired by nature and is often an imitation of nature. A quote from The Relation of Art to Nature by John Wesley Beatty says “the greatness of a work of art must depend upon the mental power of the artist, that power which enables him to apprehend or discover the essential qualities existing in nature”(6). If this is true than it is particularly important that an individual creates art.  

If something reproduced or even created by a machine would it be considered art?