So, for those who don't know, I went to a convention over Columbus day weekend called Strowlercon (amazing convention, anyone that likes unorthodox and very fun entertainment I HIGHLY recommend you go next year). Anyways, There were a lot of great folk/mythological/historical singers there, they took old legends and mythologies and turned them into song. This reminded me a bit of what Tolstoy was talking about how art is used to convey emotions, messages and history. As someone who isn't very artistically inclined, I have to say that I underestimated Tolstoy's view of art and was perplexed on why he would think art like music and paintings held a greater value than words and could express history and emotions better than characters. After heading to Strowlercon I now realize how foolish I was. There were so many musicians there that preserved ancient songs from the middle ages, they weaved musical stories of the old mythologies and histories of olden time. The emotions and the knowledge that was flooding towards me was amazing and I never truly realised the power song had. I could understand the stories and the attitude of the person or event that was described with perfect clarity and I can definitely see why Tolstoy thought why anything that does this constitutes art.
But then again, I also still believe that this is a side effect of art and not the real definition of art. I think that it might enhance the aesthetic quality of a piece, but emotions do not create artwork. If there is a way to enhance artwork that is.
Actually, all this is starting to make me wonder though, besides style, medium, and emotions, what else can affect the Aesthetic properties of art?
No comments:
Post a Comment