Tolstoy and Corrupt Art

Abstract

Frequently I hear people, obviously art lovers, say things that seem to indicate that they hold views similar to those expressed by Tolstoy in Is Art?1 But the truth is that one cannot consistently hold such views and still be an art lover. Rather, one must condemn the fine arts as corrupt, both aesthetically and morally. I wish to make this point very clear, so that in the end the reader will ask himself, Do I believe art to be what Tolstoy said it is and hence condemn the arts as corrupt, or do I disagree with him? According to Tolstoy, art is one form of communication. Frankly, the way that people nowadays speak of art as communication leads me to suspect that some of them hold a view like Tolstoy's. One does hear the critical gallery voice complaining, Well that doesn't say anything to me! or What on earth is he trying to say? In other words, art is supposed to be communication, but in this case the message isn't getting through, and that's the problem. I begin with a few simple points about communication. I see a poster announcing the visit of the Juilliard String Quartet at the end of the month and tell my wife. In everyday cases like this, there are three discernible stages to communication: one person has a belief, that person presents another with a sign that represents that belief, and the second person then comes to share that same belief. At stage one, I believe that the Juilliard String Quartet will be in town at the end of the month, and my wife does not have this belief. At stage two, I present a sign to my wife that conveys to her that I believe this; I say, The Juilliard String Quartet will be in town at the end of the