I got on this "What is Art" kick because it seemed that I might find something in the general subject of art that I could apply advantageously to the Art of Travel, which is part of my job. Remember that this blog is not aimed at sight-seeing vacationers or RV newbies.
I used to feel a bit disappointed that art, that is, beauty, had so little effect on me. But rereading Tolstoy's essay puts my mind at rest. Perhaps beauty is over-rated. If Tolstoy was correct there is a completely different way to approach the subject of art.
Finally in Chapter 5 Tolstoy's What is Art? (Google books) gets to the affirmative side of the question.
Perhaps his favorite movie would be Punchline, with Tom Hanks, Sally Fields, and John Goodman. It was a marvelous drama about the serious side of being a stand-up comedian. In one scene, the most promising comic of a certain nightclub, played by Tom Hanks, was practicing during the day at a hospital. In his audience were doctors, nurses, and patients. His humor was such powerful medicine to the patients that you couldn't tell whether they were laughing or crying. "Infective" transfer of feelings, indeed.
The other day I finally got it straight why I've been enraptured by ridgelines for so many years, despite other forms like mountains, beaches, or red rock arches being the standard objects of adoration. The experience of traversing ridgelines is the best for appreciating -- that is, being affected by -- the rest of the world, and this is more significant than the visual beauty of the ridgelines themselves.
Perhaps this captures the essence of the art of travel: of pursuing those activities and getting into a mindset that raise our sensitivities and infectabilities from what is around us when we travel; not just pretty scenery, but conversations with other people, experiences with animals, food and fitness, mental exercise, lifestyle experimentation and control of our daily habits, and the complete drama of the outdoor world.
I used to feel a bit disappointed that art, that is, beauty, had so little effect on me. But rereading Tolstoy's essay puts my mind at rest. Perhaps beauty is over-rated. If Tolstoy was correct there is a completely different way to approach the subject of art.
Finally in Chapter 5 Tolstoy's What is Art? (Google books) gets to the affirmative side of the question.
What is art, if we put aside the conception of beauty, which confuses the whole matter?But first, one last exclusion:
A man may express his emotions by lines, colors, sounds, or words, and yet may not act on others by such expression; and then the manifestation of his emotions is not art.
The peculiarity of [art], distinguishing it from intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings.
In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure, and to consider as one of the conditions of human life.The infective transfer of feelings from one person to another is what Tolstoy calls art, whether it be a joke, a painting, or a tune. It surprises me that the stern old beard would admit that telling a joke was art, since his writings were hardly ever humorous except possibly when he was ridiculing German intellectuals.
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.
Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of external signs, hands on to others feelings that he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.
Perhaps his favorite movie would be Punchline, with Tom Hanks, Sally Fields, and John Goodman. It was a marvelous drama about the serious side of being a stand-up comedian. In one scene, the most promising comic of a certain nightclub, played by Tom Hanks, was practicing during the day at a hospital. In his audience were doctors, nurses, and patients. His humor was such powerful medicine to the patients that you couldn't tell whether they were laughing or crying. "Infective" transfer of feelings, indeed.
The other day I finally got it straight why I've been enraptured by ridgelines for so many years, despite other forms like mountains, beaches, or red rock arches being the standard objects of adoration. The experience of traversing ridgelines is the best for appreciating -- that is, being affected by -- the rest of the world, and this is more significant than the visual beauty of the ridgelines themselves.
Perhaps this captures the essence of the art of travel: of pursuing those activities and getting into a mindset that raise our sensitivities and infectabilities from what is around us when we travel; not just pretty scenery, but conversations with other people, experiences with animals, food and fitness, mental exercise, lifestyle experimentation and control of our daily habits, and the complete drama of the outdoor world.
Comments
A brief comment on why I have followed your blog: I first read your blogs just before you settled in the little pueblo. Then I was interested in the observations of a seasoned full timer. Your time in the little pueblo was interesting to observe, as a concern to all who consider a life on the road, must be or should be, what happens after we've seen it all? I've formed my own opinion of that issue now, and while I'm anything but a full timer, I that is we now get out and about shall I say seasonally. In any case, life is good, and you seem to be enjoying it so much more now that you are in Ouray.
Tom in Iowa (at the moment)
mark
Tom, "had difficulty translating it to other categories"; indeed, that was the challenge of writing this post.
"what happens after we've seen it all"? Seeing it all doesn't necessarily mean experiencing much. I guess that's what we work on.
Box Canyon Blogger, we did indeed have some conversations.