1

24 A Description and Example of Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics through the Art of Diego Rivera by Amanda Schenley Leo Tolstoy is known to most people as a classic novelist and essayist. However, in addition to those written works he was also a philosopher. In his book, “What is Art?” Tolstoy sought out a subject that reflected directly back to him and his creations: the definition of what makes a work a work of art. This paper will give a brief timeline of other major philosophers’ beliefs on aesthetics to provide context and a starting point for Tolstoy. After the history, this paper will detail Tolstoy’s views on aesthetics, identifying and discarding what is and is not relevant to art’s definition. Finally, the paper will exemplify Tolstoy’s vision of art through Mexican artist Diego Rivera. His pieces on the Mexican Revolution and the Workers’ Movement demonstrate the connection between the artist and the spectator that Tolstoy exalts. For Tolstoy, art is not found in the definition of beauty or the reference of taste or the production of pleasure. In his book “What is Art?,” Tolstoy describes what he believes art’s main purpose is; why the artist plays a significant role in its production, and how he comes to define what art is. Tolstoy says that it is about humanity and emotion and the transmission of that emotion to other men. It is about unifying them in similar feelings for their progress. Tolstoy understands and expands on the discrepancy of the definition of beauty even though he doesn’t believe it is a deciding factor as to what art is. Tolstoy spends an entire chapter detailing the opinions of his predecessors and contemporaries on what beauty is. According to the founder of aesthetics, Baumgarten, beauty is a correspondence of the parts of “The Perfect.” They are recognition through the senses, reason, and moral will. He says that beauty is to excite and cause

2

25 Janua Sophia

desire. Baumgarten also thinks that nature is the highest embodiment of beauty, so therefore the primary goal of art is to copy nature. The next set of philosophers (i.e. Mendelssohn, Sulzer, Moritz) claim otherwise of beauty’s importance. They think that goodness or morality should take its place in Baumgarten’s theory. After these philosophers comes a different school of thought; Winckelmann leads the way saying that the aim of art is beauty only, separate of goodness and that antique art is the only art that can get to the highest form of beauty. Therefore, all modern art should mimic antique art if it hopes to be beautiful as well. Many German philosophers through Goethe believed this until Kant’s appearance. Philosophers from other European countries follow similar paths almost simultaneously with the Germans. Kant says that beauty, without reasoning or practicality, is pleasing and that it is perceived without an idea of use or utility; a sort of disinterested pleasure. One sees it and they are delighted; however, one does not feel a desire to have it. After Kant, the thoughts of some people changed to exclude beauty from the actual world, and they said that it was a concept of the soul. Others continue to expound on similar theories until Hegel, where the doctrine seems to sit satisfied for a while. Hegel is seemingly less clear on his theories, but more in-depth and metaphysical. This only confounds the situation more and adds to Leo Tolstoy’s argument about the exclusion of beauty from art’s definition. Tolstoy notes these different ideas as to what beauty is, to show that since there is no clear definition and no way to determine a satisfactory one (aside from the very basic disinterested pleasure that he settles upon) because of its abstract nature, it cannot be what defines art. We cannot assign a definition to one

3

26 Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics

thing using a term that we cannot also define. Tolstoy also dismisses the use of taste to define what good art is. Taste is described as one man’s capacity to be pleased or displeased by the aesthetics of a work of art. He says this cannot be the “final arbiter of what good and bad art” is, or that it is a reference we can use to even question if production, display, and appreciation of art are important (Tolstoy 5). For example, if food quality were judged solely on taste, the best foods would be the ones with the greatest flavor. However, this does not take into account the effects on health, harmful or enriching, so Tolstoy concludes that taste can not be the judge of art either. Tolstoy lists many schools of thoughts, ideas on beauty and its progression through time. He then explains that beauty can not be what defines good art. He also opines as to why taste is not a good measure either. However, he does not stop there. He renounces most other major theories; for example, that art is a metaphysical manifestation of God, or a game in which a person can release excess energy. Tolstoy denounces the idea that art may be an expression of man’s emotions through external signs, the production of pleasure, and that art is pleasure itself. There are three other definitions of art in his book “What is Art?” in which Tolstoy takes time to detail the inexactness. The first is that art is present in the animal kingdom. It is said to come from “sexual desire and the propensity to play” (Tolstoy 48). He describes that this propensity is coupled with “pleasurable excitement of the nervous system” (Tolstoy 48). Tolstoy resists this theory by saying that it is inexact because it does not describe artistic activity, but the origin of art. It does not speak to

4

27 Janua Sophia

what art really is, only from where it came. Tolstoy also addresses the nervous system’s response, saying that other non-artistic things, such as pleasing smells, have the same effect. Therefore, this definition is, one, concerning itself with the wrong matters, and two, vague. As Tolstoy continues, he dismisses the notion that art is the external manifestation by means of lines, colors, movements, sounds, or words, or emotions felt by man” (Tolstoy 48). This is similar to Tolstoy’s theory; however, Tolstoy simply states that the definition is lacking his main condition: that the emotions of the artist take effect on another individual and reappear within the sentiments of the second man. In the third and final theory, Tolstoy rejects that art is: the production of some permanent object or passing action, which is fitted, not only to supply an active enjoyment to the producer, but to convey a pleasurable impression to a number of spectators or listeners, quite apart from any personal advantage to be derived from it. (49) Basically, this theory states that everyone gets enjoyment out of the artistic display. Tolstoy denies this because of things aside from art, for example, magic tricks or a gymnastic display also fit this description. Furthermore, Tolstoy writes that other emotions are included in the art gamut besides pleasing ones. The artist can feel and share the sentiment of grief or distress and they can still be forms of art. Tolstoy characterizes all these definitions of art as “inexact” and he says that they all speak to the pleasures art can give rather than to its most important function - its service to humanity and life (49). This paper gives example after example of why beauty is sufficiently indefinable; taste is not a proper judge of

5

28 Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics

what we can not define art with, and other fallacies about the nature of art to show how Tolstoy’s argument stands up against his predecessors and to show the flaws Tolstoy has found in their theories. The detailed account of his adversaries, contemporaries, and influences better illustrates the difference between Tolstoy and everyone else and also gives a much clearer idea of what Tolstoy wrote, and thought, about art. What Tolstoy does say is that we can define art by its activity. Tolstoy says that art’s main responsibility or principle function is to cycle feelings or sentiments of inspiration through one man and to the next. He states in an excerpt from his book, “The activity of art is based on the fact that a man receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it” (Tolstoy 180). It isn’t in the pleasing pictorial representation for Tolstoy, it is the artist feeling joy or sorrow or courage or any other notion, and his ability to pass on the exact thing he felt and for the receiver to accept and share the sentiment. There are certain stipulations to this interpretation, however. Tolstoy says that the feelings don’t have to be strong, good, or important. The transmitted feeling can fit into any range, insignificant to necessary, weak to powerful, evil to pure. The art’s quality does, however, improve based on the strength of the transmission, or infection, as Tolstoy puts it. He goes on to discuss three more stipulations, and the degree of infectiousness. Tolstoy says that the feeling must be individual, clear, and sincere. The greater the three characteristics are, the higher the degree of infectiousness. Individuality speaks to the state of the soul. Tolstoy

6

29 Janua Sophia

says that the more individual the feeling a piece of artwork generates, the more fiercely it acts on the viewer. So, if the artist feeds a more individual feeling, the viewer is more nourished or satisfied, and more intently is he pleased and does he react to the pleasure. Clarity is important to really reach the recipient of the feelings. There is greater satisfaction in being able to see or hear someone express perfectly, feelings one has had throughout their life, but had always been unable to adequately transmit. Finally, sincerity is an artist’s most important asset. Tolstoy says that when a receiver feels that the artist is also greatly affected and infected by his own work, and creates his pieces for himself, not for an audience, that it makes for the greatest infection in the receiver. The opposite is true when the audience sense that the artist is being fake or producing the art for the recipient, the audience is immediately repulsed. The artist needs to be fueled by an inner need to express his emotions. Tolstoy says that the three conditions of good art are all interconnected. So, first the artist feels the need to express himself and he does so with sincerity. Every man is different, so all people will experience the art and the feeling with their own individual perspective. Obviously, the more individual the artist’s feeling is, the deeper he has searched within himself to find it. Thus, he is creating with even greater sincerity. In coordination with that thought, the idea that the deeper the artist searches within himself for individuality, he will also find clearness. The sincerity of the artist will compel him to find a sufficient clarity as well. Interestingly, Tolstoy asserts that upper-class art is

7

30 Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics

devoid of the all-important sincerity and that it is riddled with vanity and avarice. The only art always adhering to the three conditions is peasant art, and it is the divine art, according to Tolstoy. He states that if an artwork lacks even one of these conditions, it is labeled counterfeit. Since all three are so interconnected, they are all essential in determining a work’s worth. Tolstoy also makes clear that all these conditions are apart from the subject matter, that they are not affected by whether a feeling transmitted is good or bad. They only concern themselves with the presence of a feeling at all. Tolstoy addresses the question of the importance of infecting more than one person. He talks about the exponential increase of excellence in a work according to its infection of one man, but he goes on to say that the infection of more people is important. Tolstoy asserts that good art pleases everyone. For obvious reasons this statement can not be entirely true. No piece of art is going to please every person, but Tolstoy’s point is that the more people an artist can reach through his work, the greater the art’s worth. In this paper Tolstoy’s theory will be exemplified, especially in accordance with the idea that more people’s infection further validates the work, using a famous painter and his arts’ influence on many people. It will be illustrated that this painter's artwork infected many citizens, not only of his country, but others in a time of need, too. This paper will explain how Diego Rivera helped propel and support the social reconstruction after the Mexican Revolution and Mexican progression during his life and post mortem. In many books on the Mexican Revolution and the art of its era, muralist Diego Rivera is portrayed as an

8

31 Janua Sophia

overzealous yet inactive supporter of the revolution. He makes clear his beliefs as a liberal and a communist, but is chastised for his choice to remain in Europe during the actual revolts. However, when the First World War broke out 1941, Emiliano Zapata, a major force in the Mexican Revolution, was calling for all Mexicans to return to their home country. Rivera obliged, feeling patriotism, and excited by the revolutions, but not without the influence of his Russian friends in a similar situation. During his trip home, Diego focused on joining activists groups in support of the revolution. He became a member of the Revolutionary Union of Technical Workers, Painters, and Sculptors and the Mexican Communist Party. Criticisms of Rivera extended to those unions, where at one point he was rejected from both (Diegorivera.com). The Mexican Communist Party cast him off because of his too radical ideas, attacks on the church, and relation with Trotskyism (Wikipedia.org). In the Technical Workers’ union, artists like David Alfaro Siqueiros and José Clemente Orozco, two other very important Mexican muralists, implemented a set of rules guiding what type of art the members were to create. Like Tolstoy, Rivera subscribed to the idea that art should be public. Rivera also took seriously the idea of promoting and glorifying Mexican history. This is seen repeatedly in his works about Mexican workers and murals like The Arsenal. Rivera did not, however, follow the idea that people should “reject art of good taste,” that it is produced for the market or political spectators, academic art, or intellectualized criticism (Goldman xxi). This caused him to be expelled from the circle of his artist contemporaries. Tolstoy places art’s greatest importance on man’s

9

32 Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics

transmission of his feelings. In Rivera’s painting The Agitator it seems unmistakable, not only how he feels, but how he came to feel that way. He was affected by the Russian Revolution and it appeared in this work when he signed his name with the sickle and hammer. Although it was inspired by the Russian Revolution, his use of Mexican landscape and vegetation makes it easy to realize how he felt about the situation in his homeland. Also, the Mexican plant, as trite as it sounds, is stuck between a rock and a hard place, seemingly indicating a tough situation. This was an allusion to the revolution in his country and the dire problems found within. Also, it is a foreshadow of what was to come, even if Mexico were to realize its goals, it would still be forced to start over as a country and into a rebuilding period. Rivera undoubtedly echoed the sentiments of his Russian comrades during their revolution, as do Mexican citizens of Rivera’s feelings. In The Arsenal, Rivera recreates the tenacity and determination of the revolutionaries. It depicts artist Frida Khalo handing out guns to show the figurative and literal force needed to obtain their rights as citizens and workers. Organizations like the Confederation of Mexican Workers fought politically to get unions. Others, like Confederación General de Obreros y Campesinos de México (or CGOCM), rallied for workers’ strikes and against employers’ strikes. Also, they mobilized when the leftist president Lázaro Cárdena feared a coup by a former president. Because of the influence Rivera’s work had on people and the murals he was painting at home, many other countries commissioned him to paint murals on their important buildings. The Ministry of Culture, on behalf of the Red Army Club, hired him to paint a mural in Moscow

10

33 Janua Sophia

(Diegorivera.com). Later, despite his discomfort with North Americans, or “gringos,” he accepted a job in San Francisco to paint a mural for the Stock Exchange. Shortly after, he painted one for the California School of Fine arts (PBS.org). It was of him and his team in motion, painting their feelings. Right in the middle of the work was Rivera’s buttocks. This was to symbolize their hard work. His art became a huge success in America and he was commissioned in other cities, including New York and Detroit . He was accepted until he crossed a line during a commission work in New York City . Despite differences and the destruction of the work commissioned by The Rockefellers, he continued to paint his revolutionary and communist feelings (PBS.org). Although he had an influence on movements in his country, his greatest influence was on Frida Kahlo, his second wife. She had been an avid follower of his before they met. He recreated his feelings on the revolution and Mexico ’s sad state in her. She joined his cause and supported him throughout his life. Not only was she influenced by his political ideals, but she felt the pride he felt and conveyed in his paintings. She was also a painter, and his feelings about painting in general were transferred to her through their relationship and her admiration of his works. Rivera also painted individual workers picking flowers, toiling with large baskets strapped to their backs, struggling to make a living. These feelings still resound in the Mexican community today. Though Diego Rivera was not always in great standing with his contemporaries, his art did impact the history of Mexico and the world. Today his presence is still felt as are his sentiments about Mexican workers. He painted all types of workers engrossed in their jobs, and for the

11

34 Leo Tolstoy's Aesthetics

workers of Mexico it was a way for them to have their feelings heard through a louder voice than their own. Mexican establishments today still line the walls of their businesses with reproductions of Rivera’s workers. In conclusion, this paper argues that Tolstoy would consider the works of Diego Rivera “good art.” Rivera's art fits all of Tolstoy's criteria--the intentional transmission of clear, sincere feelings, individuality, and peasant art. Also, Rivera reached people on a massive scale through the Workers’ Movements and progressivism after the Mexican Revolution as well as a very singular, personal scale as he did with his greatest admirer, Frida Kahlo. Today Rivera continues to touch both ends of the spectrum, large groups and individuals, through his pieces concerning Mexican workers. Works Cited “Diego Rivera.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Rivera “Diego Rivera.” http://www.diegorivera.com/bio/index. html “Diego Rivera.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ americanmasters/database/rivera_d.html Goldman, Shifa M. Contemporary Mexican Painting in a Time of Change. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1977. Ross, Stephen David. Art and Its Significance: An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987. Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? New York, NY: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1960.