Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've never seen Tolstoy's attempt at a such definition before, but from what you describe, it reminds me of what Joyce had Stephen Daedalus think about art (I wonder if it was informed at all by Tolstoy).

As I recall it, the idea is that art starts with an unmitigated cry which is then made abstract, universal, in some way. I see no way for this to occur without some technical prowess, however.

One can surely be a noble and delight in the way in which the peasants and serfs conduct their culture. But to surmise that their art was artless (i.e. without τέχνη) seems foolish and makes me think there must be more to it than what you've suggested in your comment. Otherwise, were I to throw a fit in the street, that would qualify as art; but were I to do it in hexameter, that would not be art.

I think you are in essence right about what you're arguing, however. No cry comes from a machine, after all.



It's not so much that art had ought to be without prowess, but that the predominating reason for art to exist is as a medium of communication of a message, of emotion, to everyone. Art for art's sake, art designed only to convey the technical abilities of an artist isn't art because it isn't communicating the frame of reference of an artist, it's showing their ability to cleanly transition from dark to light values. It isn't intended to convey the mournful sadness and doesn't impute the viewer with the sense of voyeurism a la Repin's Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581 but as I qualified in the parent, I'm doing the text an injustice, it's a great work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible_and_His_So...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: