Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Tolstoy's View on Art.

I didn't attend class today, but I'm still going to blog about Tolstoy's view on art because I feel very strongly about this chapter of the textbook.

Tolstoy's view on art is that it parallels what language is to society - the transferring of information. However, for art, it doesn't transfer information, it transfers emotions and feelings. And not only does it transfer these feelings, it also creates a very unified, interconnected society on earth full of art and feeling. When somebody looks at a piece of artwork, it "infects" them and whatever the artist felt while making it, the viewer ultimately feels as well. For instance, if an artist painted a very morose, gloomy landscape of waves crashing upon the base of a lighthouse with a stormy sky in the background, the artist is transferring those negative emotions into his painting which, thus, infects the viewer. The viewer senses the negative emotions based on the imagery of the piece and, in turn, feels the same emotions the painter originally felt.

What I thought was particularly interesting about this chapter was Tolstoy's prediction that if art did not exist, then society would be horrible and savage. If people did not have the capacity to receive these feelings and emotions through artwork, how would the transference of these feelings take place? We would be disconnected from each other. Therefore, it is easy to assume that art was almost a "savior" in Tolstoy's eyes and was detrimental to the ease of the human condition.

Which leads me to the question, "If art did not exist, how do you think society would act? Would it be as 'savage' and 'horrible' as Tolstoy predicts it to be?"

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Response #4.

This is in response to Chelsea's question in which she asked, "Do you agree or disagree that it [body painting] is an appropriate form of self-expression and how do you feel about nudity in art?"

I agree with you that body painting is not only an appropriate form of self-expression, but a beautiful form. I've always found the human body beautiful on it's own - just the way the body works, the way the muscles move, all of the different modifications we can do to the human anatomy that may people overlook. It's poetry in motion, in a way. Body painting combines the elements of the physical realm and the mental realm, bringing to life ideas in one's mind painted on one's body. In this respect, it's very much like tattoos except it is not permanent, which I think allows for a lot more freedom and spontaneity in the art. Self-expression that tattooing may lack because some people my be afraid of its permanence can be more elaborated on with body painting.

As for nudity in art, because I find the human form so beautiful, I think it's one of the most organic and natural means of art around because it is what we are, what we know, and what we experience day in and day out. It is what we experience in it's most natural form, and often times its most vulnerable form. For art, this means a lot because art communicates emotions, feelings, states of mind, experiences we all go through, and the vulnerable human body speaks loudly in the art world.

My question is, "According to Tolstoy, art is a communication of feeling. Has there ever been a time where you have seen a piece of artwork or a musical composition or any other form of art, and felt no emotion whatsoever?"