In response to Professor Cassidy’s comment on my entry, “Tolstoy and Art,” I would like to elaborate on Tolstoy’s portrayal of women as objects of artistic interest and his view of real art in general.  Tolstoy believes that real art should express the emotion of the artist in a manner that perfectly communicates this feeling to a universal audience.  Counterfeit works of art do not accomplish this goal; they may communicate the wrong feeling, a feeling that was never felt by the artist but was one that he wished to communicate nonetheless, or they may not succeed in communicating their feeling to a universal audience.  Professor Cassidy questions whether good art can be compared to a chaste wife and bad art can be compared to a prostitute.  I don’t think this assessment accurately captures parallels between Tolstoy’s views on women and art.  Tolstoy delineates between real art and artificial art.  He further delineates between good art and bad art.  Real and artificial art refers to whether or not a work is successful according to his definition.  Good and bad art may refer to the moral value of the work.  Women fall into the category of real and artificial women without concern or reference to their morality.  Analysis of individual female characters may elucidate this categorization.  Masha, Nikolai’s prostitute in Anna Karenina, would be a work of art.  She holds no pretenses, approaching relationships with characters such as Nikolai, Kitty, and Levin openly, without hiding her status or attempting to portray herself as someone she is not.  In Tolstoy’s view, she may, however, be considered ‘bad’ art due to her morals.  She is not married to Nikolai and she does not remain with him in order to procreate.  Kitty begins the work as false art.  She attends balls elaborately dressed and is even caught forbidding her mother to fix her hair because she likes the natural way it looks.  She is not inherently natural; she tries to create an illusion.  She seeks marriage with Vronsky in order to improve her status in society instead of accepting marriage with Levin, a man who she has been compatible with since childhood.  After visiting the sanatorium abroad and attempting to conform to the role of self-sacrificing nurse, she finally turns her act around.  She comments that she knows that she will never be like the humble nurse who she befriends during her stay and she is tired of putting up pretenses, trying to be something she is not.  In this moment, Kitty becomes true to herself, and therefore, becomes true art.  She evolves into ‘good’ art in Tolstoy’s eyes.  For example, she practices the same openness as Masha, the prostitute, in her interactions with Nikolai, and on top of that, she marries and procreates, both actions hallmarks of a good woman in Tolstoy’s works.  Anna Karenina is natural.  Her hair contrasts to Kitty’s as it is always escaping her coiffure in the most becoming way.  She wears pansies, objects of natural beauty, in her hair to the same ball where Kitty expends so much effort in order to attain perfection.  In addition to a natural physical appearance, Anna demonstrates naturalness of character. 

Tolstoy expresses a vehement detestation for impressionist artwork in What Is Art?.  This opinion of impressionism astounded me in light of the definition of art he unpacks in the opening chapters of the work.  He asserts that art is:

…call[ing] up in oneself a feeling once experienced and, having called it up,…convey[ing] it by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, images expressed in words, so that others experience the same feeling- in this consists the activity of art.  Art is that human activity which consists in one man’s consciously conveying to others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, and in others being infected by those feelings and also experiencing them. (What Is Art? 39-40)

His insistence that real art should conjure up the exact feeling experienced by the artist in the audience upon experiencing the art jars with his perception of impressionism.  The audience must not overthink impressionist art.  One must let the shifting colors and suggested shapes tell their story, one must let the emotion evoked by the work take hold of oneself, and one must step back to view the work as a whole.  Looking too closely will erase the meaning.  Tolstoy expresses the desire that all art should produce a similar effect.  He believes that the audience should not have to intellectualize a work of literature while reading it; the meaning and feeling should come across naturally.  An example of this conviction concerns his belief that expression of meaning without words, in body language and glance, is far superior to expression of meaning with words.  He believed that the experience of the work in the moments in which it is being read should be capable of communicating the desired effect to the audience, however secondary inspection after the fact should bring an even clearer, more profound understanding to light.  Tolstoy would argue that impressionism confounds this goal of art as one must step back and observe the work as a whole in order to fully appreciate it.  In his eyes, this necessity implies that the work requires too much intellectualizing and contextualizing.  On the contrary, this method of experiencing impressionism directly reflects his aforementioned philosophy of primary and secondary experience with a work of literature.  Impressionism captures Tolstoy’s views on the purpose of real art, although he never acknowledged this parallel.  

Tolstoy begins Anna Karenina with an assertion that draws the reader into the work.  He claims, “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” (1).  This simplification of family life addresses themes that he explores in “Family Happiness” and War and Peace.  Tolstoy appears confident and decided in this opening line, but he concludes the novel in an entirely different place.  Levin speaks of the relationship he has with his family and the world in general in the wake of his ‘epiphany,’ musing, “I’ll get angry in the same way…argue in the same way…there will be the same wall between my soul’s holy of holies and other people, even my wife, I’ll accuse her in the same way of my own fear and then regret it…but my life now, my whole life, regardless of all that may happen to me, every minute of it, is not only meaningless…but has the unquestionable meaning of the good which it is in my power to put into it,” (817).  Although the author addresses his own conflict with internal peace and happiness in the character of Levin in this passage, he complicates a previously determined simple delineation between happy and unhappy families. 

Levin and Kitty are, for all intents and purposes, happy at the conclusion of Anna Karenina, but there will still be ups and downs, quarrels and reconciliations.  In War and Peace, two marriages are presented at the conclusion of the work as in a Shakespearian play, where a marriage indicates a happy ending.  Natasha and Pierre are content, but Natasha has experienced intense loss in the form of Andrei and her former graces.  She finds happiness in childrearing.  Marya and Nikolai are content as well, but the road before them is rocky as Nikolai’s temper eternally divides and unites the two and Marya’s insecurities threaten to tip the marriage boat.  Marya finds her place as Nikolai’s moral compass and confidante.  Clearly, happy families, or peaceful ones for that matter, are very different.  On the other hand, Anna and Alexei Karenin have a very different unhappy relationship than Anna and Vronsky. 

It appears that such an oversimplification between happy and unhappy families is just that: an unhelpful oversimplification.  Tolstoy was rushing to complete Anna Karenina in order to move onto more didactic works such as A Confession and What Is Art? which could attribute to any lack of continuity of opinion between the opening statement and the concluding passage.  For further consideration, Levin was shaped to deal with many issues parallel to Tolstoy’s own issues.  Perhaps Tolstoy’s apparent change in opinion reflects Levin’s internal realization that merely having a wife in the country does not equal happiness.  Levin’s disillusionment concerning the work necessary for a successful marriage may be reflected in the opinions expressed by Tolstoy the narrator, as the two men are closely related.

Tolstoy and his characters seek the answers the life’s toughest questions, and in doing so, deprive themselves of inner peace.  Before Pierre experiences a lack of thought in the grip of captivity and realizes that there are limitations to his human comprehension, he goes so far as to join the Freemasons in search of “meaning.”  As soon as he senses that he has discovered truths of Masonic law, his interest in the organization wanes.  Prince Andrei exhibits a similar desire for meaning when he shifts his loyalties from one prestigious mentor to the next in an effort to understand life.  As soon as he is disillusioned and finds that these superiors practice faulty reasoning or are, in the end, merely humans, he casts them aside and throws himself into the quest for truth once again.  It’s almost as though these men subconsciously want to continue the quest eternally until death in order to confirm their own ignorance and force themselves to acknowledge a higher being on their deathbed.  Andrei’s life plays out in exactly this manner; only when he is on the brink of death does he finally accept that some higher being must exist that man cannot possibly comprehend.  Pierre, fortunately, comes to this conclusion earlier in his life and is able to truly live, instead of quest, for the remainder of his life.  In the face of war, it is comforting for man to acknowledge his own limitations and, therefore, the existence of a higher being as the atrocities of battle become fathomable in their “unfathomability.”  Because man cannot understand certain events, the events become plausible.  Tolstoy’s exploration of man’s desire for knowledge and fascination with the unknown continues into Anna Karenina.  Kitty and her sisters enchant Konstantin Levin, a sister-less man, as, “He knew that everything that went in there was beautiful, and he was in love precisely with the mysteriousness of it all,” (Anna Karenina 22).  Kitty repels Levin precisely because she does understand him, but deeply desires Vronsky as his mystery attracts her like a moth to a light.  She contemplates Vronsky’s allure, “It was if there was some falseness- not in him, he was very simple and nice- but in herself, while with Levin she felt completely simple and clear.  But on the other hand, the moment she thought of future with Vronsky, the most brilliantly happy prospects rose before her, while with Levin, the future seemed cloudy,” (Anna Karenina 47).  Tolstoy’s exploration of mystery and the unexplainable becomes a sexual exploration.  In Tolstoy’s mind, women’s role is to bare children and organize the home.  Here, Kitty seems to seek this life goal in the way Pierre, Andrei, and Levin seek meaning in life.  She seeks the unexplainable, desiring to understand it, yet simultaneously wishing for the mystery to remain intact.  Marriage was a terrifying institution for romantic women of the age and a marriage where the future is unknown, yet exciting, gives them hope.  Questing for mystery and complication backfires for women in their romantic relations as it does for men in their quest for life meaning.  Kitty weds Levin and Natasha weds Pierre.  Anna cannot give up the sense-heightening chase, and, so, perishes.  

In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy’s characters are accepted by society according to their ability to maintain a natural demeanor in the face of society.  Anna and Stiva exhibit the same naturalness as Anatole of War and Peace and achieve the same acceptance in Russian society.  Levin’s unawareness and inability to keep himself under control in the presence of others alienates him from his peers.  His inability to interact appropriately with others as a result of low self-esteem and constant over-thinking creates an uncomfortable aura of unnaturalness around him.  As exhibited by Anna Sherer of War and Peace who expertly navigates her gatherings in order to keep conversation flowing in a smooth manner, any incongruent action, such as the comments of Pierre, disrupt the accepted and expected societal current.  Volonsky’s visit to the Oblonsky house in order to inquire about the hour of a get-together strikes the characters as unnerving.  Tolstoy writes, “There was nothing either extraordinary or strange in a man calling at his friend’s house at half-past nine to find out the details of a dinner that was being planned and not coming in; but they all thought it strange.  To Anna especially it seemed strange and not right,” (Anna Karenina 76).  Anna Karenina, a touchstone character for detecting sincerity, is the most affected by Volonsky’s actions, even though she is enticed by them.  Naturalness becomes the meter by which the reader may measure the morality of a character’s actions.  Before reading What Is Art?, we acknowledged in class that Tolstoy prizes the natural man.  He cannot always accurately capture this lower class realistically in his characters, but the fact remains that he lauds naturalness, which he associates with nature, and detests falsity.  In What Is Art?, he asserts that real art captures felt emotion in such a way that universal audiences come away with the same emotion after experiencing it.  Tolstoy does not publicly express this take on art until this volume is published after Anna Karenina and War and Peace, but the sanction of natural, sincere actions exists before he collects his thoughts in What Is Art?.

Mediums of art lend light to the women of Tolstoy’s works.  In War and Peace, Helene revels in her own allure and the author describes her as a marble statue.  Later in the work, he conjures the image of “hands had run over,” in order to portray Helene’s near prostitution in society.  She exists as a hull, or shell, almost as if one turned her on her end, the viewer would find that the artist had left the gleaming sculpture hollow in order to cut expenses.  In Anna Karenina, Kitty has entered society in the beginning chapters, yet the appeal of seeing and being seen has not yet subsided for her.  Tolstoy describes her as a kind of middle-of-the-journey pilgrim in the quest towards marriage, the goal of a woman’s presentation to society.  Kitty reflects at the first ball Tolstoy portrays in the novel, “In her bare shoulders and arms she felt a cold, marble-like quality that she especially liked.  Her eyes shone, and her red lips could not help smiling from the sense of her own attractiveness,” (Anna Karenina 77).  Tolstoy’s description of Kitty as a statue bodes poorly for her future in the work.  With time, the hands of the many men she dances with may leave her as marred as Helene if her head allows her heart to stray towards hollowness.  At balls, Kitty lives to dance with as many partners as she can muster and is adroitly learning to navigate conversation with her partners.  In contrast, Anna Karenina comments that she never dances unless she is forced.  Kitty notices, “Her loveliness consisted precisely in always standing out from what she wore, that what she wore was never seen on her.  And the black dress with luxurious lace was not seen on her; it was just a frame, and only she was seen- simple, natural, graceful, and at the same time gay and animated,” (Anna Karenina 79).  Anna exhibits the same skill in society as Kitty, but does so in a natural way, as if she has been aware of how to relate to others from birth.  Her natural curls never fail to escape from her coiffure.  Tolstoy mentions that Kitty protests when her mother attempts to tidy her attire when they enter the ballroom, but her “red lips” and desire for Anna to wear a lilac dress reveal a deeper concern for appearance.  Her insistence that her mother not straighten her attire almost confirms this observation as it reveals that even when appearing natural, Kitty has attempted to appear that way, she is not inherently natural, at least in the beginning sections of the novel.  Although we have not yet explored Tolstoy’s views on art in our class, the author appears to brandish an appreciation for the natural capture of beauty through the smooth medium of painting coupled with a fierce opposition to the forced, violent methods of chipping away a marble sculpture.  Method appears to validate the concluding beauty of the work of art.  However, when Levin becomes an artistic link for the two women, observing Anna’s portrait towards the conclusion of the work, the former analysis of natural canvas and stiff sculpture is convoluted.  Levin has joined with Kitty after she has thrown off her crippling societal concerns and accepted herself as a natural woman.  Levin observes, “It was not a painting but a lovely living woman with dark, curly hair, bare shoulders and arms, and a pensive half smile on her lips, covered with tender down, looking at him triumphantly and tenderly with troubling eyes.  Only, because she was not alive, she was more beautiful than a living woman can be,” (696).  Through the course of the novel, Anna’s unnatural marriage morphs her into a vicious, essentially dead shell of a woman.  Kitty’s natural marriage is condoned by Tolstoy and her marble façade is softened with motherhood.  Exploration of Tolstoy’s views on art will clarify this analysis.

The fundamental attribution error of psychology refers to the explanation of issues or disorders in a person’s life due to their inherent personality instead of the environment.  This analysis is described as erroneous because, oftentimes, the environment causes an individual to act in a certain way merely due to the situation, not as a result of their beliefs, morals, or manners of interacting with others.  Tolstoy both accepts and rejects the fundamental attribution error in his works, “Family Happiness” and War and Peace revealing yet another facet of his contradicting personality.  Characters like Olenin, Nikolai Rostov, and Andrei Bolkonsky are convinced that their problems will dissipate if they relocate themselves from the city to the country or military.  Bolkonsky explains to Marya before leaving for the military, “I cannot, have not, and never will reproach my wife for anything, nor can I reproach myself for anything in relation to her; and that will always be so, no matter what circumstances I find myself in.  But if you want to know the truth…if you want to know whether I am happy? No.  Is she happy? No.  Why is that? I don’t know…” (War and Peace 108).  Their ever-present inner struggles demonstrate Tolstoy’s assertion that unhappiness is the result of an individual’s state of mind, not the environment in which they find themselves. 

The author presents a contradicting assertion when he vehemently dispels the idea of a great, shaping ruler in favor of the hypothesis that fated events, driven by the collective culmination of human choices, lay down history.  This hypothesis of the flow of history trumping individual action implies that the environment determines each choice; in other words, choice can be credited to circumstance, not personality.  Here Tolstoy agrees with modern psychologists’ view.  Tolstoy’s apparent difficulty with the question of will and fate, as evidenced by the failed relocations coupled with the hypothesis of leadership, extends to his own life.  He perpetually changed his situation between womanizer and proponent of chastity, gambler and churchgoer, soldier and peacemaker.  At the same time, he suffered from severe depression, rejected his family, renounced his earlier works as vanity, and abandoned his home only to lead to his death.  His eternal questioning of himself indicates insufferable insecurity. 

Although Tolstoy proposes that an individual may only accept life, death, and the self when he can recognize his limitations, the author evidently struggled to adhere to this dogma.  An ardent intellectual, he reasons that attending one’s instinctual emotions is key to inner peace.  Tolstoy’s emotionally turbulent lifestyle reflects this cognitive dissonance as he attempts to merge with the flow of circumstance contrary to his desire to control all aspects of his life.