30th November 2005, 1:51 PM
(I seriously need to stop reading threads backwards)
I never agreed with Tolstoy, what he brings up is only a fraction of the entire meaning of art. Art is not just to mimic or re-create, that's a very 'scoff scoff, powdered wigs an wot' way of looking at it as you completely denounce all fictional forms of art. You cannot re-create or mimic what has never been. You can try to ground it in existing sciences or theology (science fiction), but that is only half the picture.
Quote:Tolstoy detaches art from non-art (or counterfeit art); art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is; he believed that the concept art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy exemplifies this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf and later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel what he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work art.
I never agreed with Tolstoy, what he brings up is only a fraction of the entire meaning of art. Art is not just to mimic or re-create, that's a very 'scoff scoff, powdered wigs an wot' way of looking at it as you completely denounce all fictional forms of art. You cannot re-create or mimic what has never been. You can try to ground it in existing sciences or theology (science fiction), but that is only half the picture.