From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: What is art?  (was: What do you do when your child thinks Metallica is cool?)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.183303.24039@gtech.com> caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.170043.21963@cbnews.cb.att.com> ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
 
>>I agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Tolstoy's universality
>>theory is no longer valid, or at least universally applicable :-).  
>>Tolstoy was writing for a fairly homogeneous society.  His words would
>>have only been read by the educated upper-class members of Russian society.
>>Since old Vladimir down on the potato(e) farm probably couldn't even read,  
>>he obviously wouldn't have been aware of or cared about Uncle Leo's
>>theories, or, for that matter, about art in general.  The "universe" in 
>>the universality theory was a very small and select one. 
>
>I'd have to disagree most emphatically. Tolstoy's universality theroy
>was an expanded artistic universe. In his essay on the subject, he 
>talked about language and translation as well as culture. To him, the
>truest piece of art in literature was the story of Joseph and the many
>colored coat. As he said, [paraphrased] "in any language and in any
>culture, we understand what the egyptian woman meant when she says 
>'Come to me.' We understand the significance of his refusal." To 
>Tolstoy, it was important that people of other cultures could understand
>his writings in transalation; it was also important to him that the
>*story* could still be carried, with it's significance, without the
>words (oral tradition). 

If that was truly his intention (and I believe you) then I think he
failed miserably.  I can think of few authors who were *more* 
representative of their culture and their times.  Tolstoy's novels are 
full of historical allusions, comments on the fashions and mores of
his times, critiques of 19th century farming techniques (there's at
least 50 pages of just *that* in "Anna Karenina"), editorials on
the state of the Russian church, etc.  It's all very much 
culture-specific, and it simply *doesn't* translate very well to
other cultures and other times.  

That's not meant as a slam on his obvious literary gifts.  Tolstoy
was a great novelist, but he was great in the same way that all
great novelists are great - because he wielded language superbly.

As far as his belief that the story should be able to be carried over 
into any culture and any time - well, I'm going to paraphrase you, Topher.  
I think plot is largely overrated.  The same basic plots have been  
recycled for thousands of years.  I think Carl Jung was misguided
in many areas, but his emphasis on archetypes is absolutely correct.
The story of Abraham is essentially the same story as Homer's "Odyssey" 
is essentially the same story as Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" is 
essentially the same story as Twain's "Huck Finn" is essentially the same 
story as Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" will be essentially the same story 
as Lauren's new novel :-).  Obviously there are significant differences 
in setting, development of characters, use of language, and so on, but 
they all involve journeys from safe, comfortable worlds into unknown 
territories, and they all deal with how those journeys reveal the central
characters' true natures.  The worthiness and greatness of a work of
literature rarely comes from the plot (otherwise Cliff Notes would be 
considered great literature).  It comes from how well and how creatively 
the language is used, and from the freshness of the insights that 
are communicated.

On his own terms I'd say that Tolstoy blew it.  But I tend to judge
him in other terms.  

>Romeo and Juliett is a story of such basic tragedy that it is universally
>embraced. In Shakespere's or without, the story looses little of it's
>force. Presented on stage, read, or simply related in it's outline form,
>we see the intended purpose, and we understand and feel the sadness.

I disagree.  Reading Cliff Notes (the outline form of the play) or watching 
"Valley Girl" (which simply updates the R&J plot) can't even *begin* to 
convey the sadness and pathos of Shakespeare's story.  The sadness and 
pathos are communicated through the language that Shakespeare used. 

How do these ideas translate over into Christian mu ... er, I mean
music made by Christians?  Well, once again, I'd say that the plot
is largely overrated.  We all know the basic plot.  We can read it 
in the Bible.  I hope nobody reads that as a criticism of the Bible.
Obviously it's the plot that tells us truly who God is, and who we
are, and how to bridge the gap between the two.  But we already
*know* the plot.  And music that simply parrots what the Scriptures
have to say, or that merely paraphrases what the Scriptures have
to say, is boring, boring, boring.  

It seems to me that the task of Christian musicians is to start with
the basic truth of the Scriptures and work it out in every aspect of
their lives.  It's no different with us, but most of us don't have
the privilege and responsibility of doing it with a guitar or a
microphone.  God works that truth out differently in the hearts
of every individual.  God may have shown me things, given me 
insights, given me creative ways to communicate those insights,
that he hasn't given you.  And vice versa.  Those insights might
pertain to *anything*, including a better understanding of God's
nature, a better way to love my kids, or a better way to grill
bratwurst.  It's all fair game for music, as far as I'm concerned.
They key, though, is in communicating the insights in fresh, new
ways, both lyrically and in terms of the melodies, rhythms, and 
instrumentation used.  

On second thought, skip the bratwurst.  Go with low-fat turkey franks
instead.

>Topher
>-- 
> Christopher A. White                    | 
> caw@gtech.com                           | Free will is largely overrated. 
> GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | 
> The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com