The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. Count Leo Tolstoy · What Is Art?

[ 1 ] Count Leo Tolstoy has published an essay titled “What Is Art?” Since he has taken up the role of a moral preacher, the Russian novelist has lost the sympathy of a large portion of his former admirers. The content of his moral teachings is by no means on par with his artistic genius. This doctrine consists of an emotional morality based on universal love for humanity and compassion, aimed at combating selfishness. “Watered-down Christianity” is the best term one can find to describe it. From the standpoint of this moral doctrine, Tolstoy also answers the question he now poses to himself: “What Is Art?” First, he points out the immense amount of human labor that must be expended to bring a work of art into being. He takes as his starting point an opera rehearsal he once attended. He describes the time and effort such a rehearsal requires and how callously the directors treat the staff they are working with. And then he asks himself: what comes of all that effort and work? “For whom is all this done? Who can it please? Even if beautiful melodies that are pleasant to hear occur now and then in this opera, one could simply sing them without these silly costumes, processions, recitatives, and arm-waving. But a ballet in which half-naked women perform sensually arousing movements and entangle themselves in garlands is nothing more than a morally corrupting mental image, so that one cannot even comprehend for whom it is intended. An educated person has grown tired of such things, and an ordinary worker simply does not understand them. It can only—and I would even doubt this—appeal to those who are not yet sated with so-called aristocratic pleasures, but who have adopted aristocratic tastes and wish to display their refinement, like young lackeys . . . And all this ugly stupidity is rehearsed not with good-naturedness, not simply with cheerfulness, but with malice, with bestial cruelty.”

[ 2 ] Since art demands such sacrifices, one must ask: What is the purpose of art? How does art contribute to the overall development of human culture? To answer this question, Tolstoy surveys the German, French, and English aestheticians who have published their views on the role of art. He arrives at an unfavorable judgment of these aestheticians. He finds that there is no consensus on the concept of art. “If one disregards,” he says, “the very imprecise definitions of beauty—which do not capture the concept of art—and which find its essence sometimes in utility, sometimes in functionality, sometimes in symmetry, sometimes in order, sometimes in proportionality, sometimes in smoothness, sometimes in the harmony of the parts, sometimes in unity, sometimes in diversity, and sometimes in the various combinations of these principles—if one disregards these inadequate attempts at objective definitions—then all aesthetic definitions of beauty can be traced back to two fundamental views: the first, that beauty is something that exists in and of itself, one of the manifestations of the absolutely perfect, of the Idea, of the Spirit, of the Will, of God—and the second, that beauty is a certain pleasure we experience, which has no personal benefit as its purpose.”

[ 3 ] Tolstoy finds both views imperfect, and he sees the reason for this imperfection in the fact that they are based on a primitive view of human culture. At a primitive stage of understanding, people also see the purpose of eating as the pleasure that eating brings them. A higher level of understanding is reached when people recognize that the purpose of eating is nourishment—and thus the sustenance of life—and when they regard pleasure merely as a secondary byproduct. Similarly, a person who believes that the purpose of art lies in the enjoyment of beauty is at a lower level. “To define art precisely, one must first and foremost cease to regard it as a means to pleasure; rather, one must see art as one of the conditions of human life. From this perspective, we must admit that art is one of the means by which people interact with one another.” Tolstoy does not regard art as an end in itself. People should understand, love, and support one another; for him, this is the purpose of all culture. Art should be merely a means of realizing this higher purpose. Through words, people share their thoughts and experiences with one another. Through language, the individual lives within and alongside the whole of the human race. What words alone cannot achieve in fostering this coexistence, art is meant to accomplish. It is meant to convey emotions and feelings from person to person, just as words convey experiences and thoughts. “The function of art lies in the fact that, by perceiving the expression of another’s feelings through the ear or the eye, a person is able to empathize with those feelings.”

[ 4 ] I believe that Tolstoy overlooks the origin of art. For the artist, communication is not the primary concern. When I see a phenomenon of nature or human life, a primal impulse drives me to form a mental image of that phenomenon. And my imagination compels me to reshape and elaborate this image in a way that corresponds to certain inclinations within me. To elaborate this image, I make use of the means that correspond to my abilities. If these means are colors, then I paint; and if they are mental images, then I write poetry. I do this not to express myself, but because I feel the need to create images of the world as my imagination dictates. I am not satisfied with the form that nature and human life take for me when I view them merely as a passive observer. I want to create images that I invent myself or that I—even if I take them in from the outside—render in my own way. Human beings do not want to be mere observers; they do not want to be mere spectators of world events. They also want to add something of their own to what comes at them from the outside. That is why he becomes an artist. How this creation then continues to have an effect is a secondary consequence. And if one is to speak of the effect of art on human culture, Tolstoy may be right. But the justification for art as such must be sought—regardless of its effect—in an original need of human nature.