I believe that creativity and art do in fact have a place in Tolstoy's definition of art. In the example of the boy telling the story of the wolf, Tolstoy even outlines that the boy is not merely recounting what had happened to him, but was doing much more. He wanted to make his listeners feel what he was feeling, so in order to do that, he sets the stage for them, telling them his surroundings, what his mindset was during the time, describing to them all that was around him and going through his mind so that way his listeners could put themselves in his shoes. In order to do this, he has to help them see what he saw, feel what he felt; he has to help them create that experience for them; that is what makes a good storyteller; a good artist.
In that case, a newspaper is not art. Newspapers merely recount an event, and do not attempt to put the reader in the place of the person in the story. Newspapers don't try to set the scene, or put people in a certain mindset, or to even try to evoke a certain emotion in the reader; it is simply recounting events. Yes, it is a form of communication, but a newspapers job is not to convey the article's writer's feelings or emotions, nor is it the writer's job to do this; it just needs to tell what happened.
When the boy tells his story to his audience, he is doing much more than just telling them what happened: he is putting his audience into his shoes so they may experience what he did. He uses his words to create and set the scene for his listeners, so they can see the woods, smell the trees, hear the wolf's growl, and feel his fear. The boy is an artist, a storyteller at his craft, and what sets him apart from mediums such as newspapers is his creative aspect, his artistic aspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment