What is the Value of Art: Tolstoy vs. Sartre?

Defining what constitutes great art may be one of the most challenging questions for philosophy. Art is often viewed as an entirely subjective discipline and therefore the purpose of art is similarly seen as subjective. However, some philosophers such as the Russian author Leo Tolstoy have taken issue with this notion. Tolstoy insists on an objective moral purpose and value for art. He takes issue with how much of art is practiced and taught as being insufficiently moral and believes that all artists should use their works for didactic purposes. Tolstoy clearly sees a stark difference not simply between good and bad art but also between moral and immoral art. In contrast, the French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre was more inclined to see art, including performative art, in a positive light. Although Sartre views art essentially as unreal or simulacra, he also believes that analyzing such art can be instructive in philosophy and inspiring in its beauty.

Tolstoy establishes his case by suggesting that if art did not possess the ability to change people’s minds and hearts, then government authorities would not expend so much energy into censoring it or supporting it. Thus, those resources, he states, must be spent wisely. Additionally, artists themselves devote their entire lives to often brutal pursuits such as learning perfect turnout for dance or how to play an instrument. The craftsmanship of laborers should also not go unrecognized, as many people have given up their lives to build beautiful buildings in the name of art. Tolstoy views much of this as “stunting human life,” as people are simply reducing themselves to solely learning how to twirl or to strum an instrument (Cottingham 735). When he visited the Russian opera he was horrified at what he saw as the single-mindedness and decadence of the singers and dancers.

Tolstoy clearly hoped that his books would convey moral lessons versus what he viewed as the absurd nature of the opera. Of course, this reflects what many would call an aesthetic judgement, even though Tolstoy presents his observations as objective truth. While some might protest that what he saw was merely diversion and light art and did not cancel out the value of more serious works of literature or performance, Tolstoy viewed the resources that went into the creation of light operas and other works of popular entertainment as an opportunity cost of scarce resources of time and moral energy that could be better spent on high art, or preferably philosophy.

In contrast, Jean Paul Sartre, in his analysis of Hamlet, notes that the tears of the actor playing the Danish prince may be viewed as an analogy to real tears, as they are experienced by the actor and the audience (Cottingham 739). Moral values are concerned with how human beings behave in the world but aesthetic values relate to the unreal and they do not have to have the same grounding in real, moral behavior. In other words, while Tolstoy despised art which depicted what he saw as silly romantic stories, Sartre thought that there was instructive and cathartic value in, for example, seeing immoral actions take place and people making bad choices on the stage. There was value in witnessing strange works of the imagination and audiences would not necessarily take such works literally and apply those values in a narrow and schematic fashion to their lives and personal struggles.

Another example used by Sartre is the act of painting a historical figure such as Charles II. Rather than viewing Charles II image as a straightforward analogy with the king himself, Sartre points out that the painting actually originated in the artist’s imagination (Cottingham 740). In other words, it is not a direct reflection of the man, but a reflection of the unreal world of the artist. In support of this, it might be noted that historical figures can be portrayed in very different ways by very different artists. The different images may all appear equally real and appear to reference a real person but they can be just as radically different as a purely fictive depiction of a man.

Sartre also denied that a work of art is a real object at all. It is irrelevant to some degree for Sartre if the work is Cubist or Realist. Art is still its enclosed world and does not have reference to anything outside of it, whether it is of a real man or a Cubist work that only seems to reference a physical object. Unlike Tolstoy, who is repelled by art that is not realistic, for Sartre, “the real is never beautiful” and only through art and conscious craftsmanship can beauty exist (Cottingham 744). In fact, it is reality that causes disgust, not, as Tolstoy stated, a sense that the art is artificial.

Both men clearly had very different philosophies of life. Sartre asserted a radical doctrine of freedom, urging people to question accepted ideas that confined their minds. Tolstoy clearly had a very definite idea of what people should preoccupy themselves with on a moral level, and if individuals diverted from that preoccupation, even if they were focused on learning to sing and dance beautifully, he regarded this as problematic. Their moral philosophies are reflected in their aesthetic philosophies.

Works Cited

Cottingham, John. Western Philosophy: An Anthology (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell,
2007.