Historic, romantic, or poetic art seems to haveno attractions for Tolstoi, In fact, he jumpsupon what he terms poetic art with immensevigour, and reserves his greatest vials of scornfor some of its modern exponents. He seemsto have little perception of the law of evolutioneither in life or in art, which accounts for itsvery varied forms, and different spirit in differ-ent ages, and among different races and socialconditions. Nor does he seem to recognizethat every age demands a fresh interpretationof life in art. Form, spirit, and methods inart all change with the different temper of thetimes.

Tolstoi plays havoc with the critics, and hisexposure of the shams, imitations, and pre-tentiousness in many forms of modern art isunsparing and often too true; and one feels inhearty sympathy with his desire for spontaneityand sincerity in art, as well as for a social state,a true co-operative commonwealth in whichagain might be realized that unity of purpose andsentiment upon which all forms of art dependfor their widest appeal.

Tolstoi’s ideal of a state in which all con-tribute to the useful labour of the community isa fine one, and, of course, this would condemnnone to a life of monotonous toil or drudgery;but would afford leisure for thought and cultiva-tion of the arts by those who had the realcapacity in them; no one being attracted bycommercial advantage or material profits, since,under these conditions, arts would be the spon-taneous outcome of life, and freely offered for

73

Note on Tol-stoi’s “Whatis Art?”