Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

What Is Art? (Library of Liberal Arts)

3.58 of 5 stars 3.58 · rating details · 644 ratings · 44 reviews

During the decades of his world fame as sage and preacher as well as author of War and Peace and Anna Karenin, Tolstoy wrote prolifically in a series of essays and polemics on issues of morality, social justice and religion. These culminated in What is Art?, published in 1898. Although Tolstoy perceived the question of art to be a religious one, he considered and rejected...more

Paperback, 213 pages

Published November 1st 1996 by Hackett Publishing Company (first published 1897)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 1,501)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 29, 2012 Najla rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: russian-litreture, non-fiction

بدأ تولستوي في بحث ونقاش موضوع كتابة قبل 15 عاماً من تبلور الفكرة في شكلها النهائي وإصدار الكتاب.
أسس تولستوي فكرته حول كون الفن يجب ان يكون قريبا من البشرية قابلا للفهم ومفيدا بحيث يعطي مشاعر إيجابية للمتلقى ومؤثرا على الانسان البسيط كما هو الحال على المثقف.
لكن ما اختلف فيه مع الكتاب بانه حصر الفن بحالتين فقط، الاولى " الفن الذي ينقل الأحاسيس النابعة من الوعي الديني" وهو بذلك يحدد الدين المسيحي فقط، والثانية "الفن الذي ينقل ابسط الأحاسيس الحياتية التي يفهمها كل الناس وفي كل العالم" لكنه ربط ذلك...more

3 likes · like · see review

Sep 04, 2012 Thomas Rogers rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I recently read this book on holiday in Austria.

Fascinating!

I am a Fine Art student attending Falmouth University Cornwall, going into my final year, and a devout follower of Jesus.
Throughout the course of my degree I have constantly struggled to reconcile my beliefs, with fine art.
Most of the time art seemed pretty pointless to me, it seemed completely self-indulgent, and a total waste of my time along with everybody else's - when considering the state of this world and the majority of it's in...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 02, 2012 Kevin Richey rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I’m so conflicted with Tolstoy. I agree with him about half the time, and the other half, I just wish he’d stop being so damn Puritanical. I don’t disagree with Tolstoy’s basic thesis, that art is defined by the following features: a person (the artist) feels a certain emotion, and captures that emotion in his work (a book, poem, concert, whatever) so that the viewer is infected with that same emotion. That works for me. I agree also with Tolstoy that emotional resonance is more important than t...more I’m so conflicted with Tolstoy. I agree with him about half the time, and the other half, I just wish he’d stop being so damn Puritanical. I don’t disagree with Tolstoy’s basic thesis, that art is defined by the following features: a person (the artist) feels a certain emotion, and captures that emotion in his work (a book, poem, concert, whatever) so that the viewer is infected with that same emotion. That works for me. I agree also with Tolstoy that emotional resonance is more important than the superficial beauty of a work. Substance over style. I disagree with Tolstoy not so much in his definition of what art is, but rather, what good art is. For Tolstoy, the only good art is that which depicts a good emotion, and the only good emotions are those which express the most evolved religious consciousness of the time. And, for Tolstoy, that was a Christian sentiment. (He wasn’t devout enough to say that it was the sentiment of the Christian church; in fact, he says the opposite: that the current art of the church is devoid of emotion, and therefore bad art.) And that Christian sentiment can be classified as two types: that which addresses the brotherhood of all mankind, and that which encourages our submission to God. Again, this is where I disagree, and where most people who enjoy the arts would disagree. Because, if you follow Tolstoy’s mandates, we dismiss the plays of Shakespeare, the philosophy of Nietzsche, the later works of Beethoven, and so on. Basically, things Tolstoy finds out of line with his view of the world. He rules that because he feels no feelings of brotherhood from these artists, they must not be artists. Even Tolstoy’s own works, save for two late short stories about God, are denounced as bad art. He also, in another of his should-have-been-repressed epilogues, denounces modern science, saying that science should only focus on figuring out how to stop wars and other problems of daily life, and not bother with bourgeois pastimes like vaccinations and chemistry and the like.

So, basically, everything Tolstoy uses to define the worthiness of certain works of art I disagree with, but his comments on the nature of art, on its creation, commercialization, the worthlessness of art schools, and so on, I found realistic and insightful. I think Tolstoy was quite smart, and did see and address real problems; he was just held back by an antiquated and immobile set of morals that seem completely based on a fantasy, not his real background.(less)

6 likes · like · see review

Jan 31, 2010 Jonathan rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I can't remember another instance when I disagreed so frequently with an author's argumentation in support of a premise with which I thoroughly agreed.
Tolstoy's answer to his tract's title's question -- Art is ephemeral liberation from the self ("thinking of the key, each confirms his prison" says Eliot towards the end of the piece that was a key, for me at least), it's communion, something like a brief transmission from the interior, a window opening into the heart of what it feels like to be a...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 13, 2012 Don rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Rewarding. Righteous Rant. Recommended. (How’s that for alliteration? – sadly about the last concept I retain from my schooling in English). About 30 something years ago I was a college freshman opening a final exam for a poetry class and was somewhat shocked to find that about half of the exam would be an essay entitled “What is art?”- a topic we had not discussed in class – and for which I was little prepared. My somewhat cynical response was something about “a display of skill intended to pro...more Rewarding. Righteous Rant. Recommended. (How’s that for alliteration? – sadly about the last concept I retain from my schooling in English). About 30 something years ago I was a college freshman opening a final exam for a poetry class and was somewhat shocked to find that about half of the exam would be an essay entitled “What is art?”- a topic we had not discussed in class – and for which I was little prepared. My somewhat cynical response was something about “a display of skill intended to promote self-satisfaction or the approbation of others.” I got a B. I remain a wannabe-English major.

Tolstoy’s answer to that question boils down to something like “the communication of self-experienced feelings understandable to the educated and unschooled alike that promotes the harmony of all humankind.” The center of Tolstoy’s moral universe is the Sermon on the Mount the essence of which he perceives to be something like “that which is good is what promotes harmony among all human beings.” And it is this understanding that infuses his understanding of art. It leaves him quite hostile to elitism and complexity. Railing against Wagner, Beethoven, the French poets of his day, art schools, and the wealthy, he makes the case for a personal but democratic art, accessible to all and devoid of pretension. Tolstoy’s ideas on art have been influential. Northrop Frye, while sharing Tolstoy’s basic principle regarding universal appear, advocated transforming Tolstoy’s theory of art into a theory of education. Frye-devotee Harold Bloom echoes Tolstoy’s iconoclasm and, like Tolstoy, looks to religion for an understanding of how art can be personally meaningful. Bloom’s protégé Camille Paglia, too, embraces religion as a foundation of art but looks to the struggle for acceptance and respect for authentic sexual identities as an important task for art in promoting human harmony.

If you like this kind of stuff, and need a break from all the neuroscience and evolutionary psychology that seems to dominate these types of discussions today, What is Art? provides a good quick escape. If you don’t like artsy talk, it might still be worth a read simply to experience a great and learned mind communicating clearly and accessibly.
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 14, 2013 John rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

WHAT IS ART? starts out all nice and reasonable, so it's a bit of a surprise just how bizarre it gets in later chapters. Tolstoy took an awful long time to write this, and it sort of feels as though he went senile about halfway through. Perhaps needless to say, Tolstoy is an incredibly tough critic to please. Almost nothing passes muster with him, and, being an insufferable grump, he certainly wouldn't have been the type of guy I'd have liked to catch a movie with.
Another problem with the book...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 17, 2011 Katy rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

I read this because it was mentioned in the end notes for Anna Karenina.

This book summarizes fifteen years of Tolstoy's pondering the questions, "What is Art?" "What is the current state of artistic expression in Western Culture?" and "What should art be?"

First question: What is Art?
The book begins with Tolstoy summarizing the philosophical discussions and attempts at definition up to that time. He finds that the idea of "beauty" has derailed the discussion, and dismisses beauty as mere pleasu...more I read this because it was mentioned in the end notes for Anna Karenina.

This book summarizes fifteen years of Tolstoy's pondering the questions, "What is Art?" "What is the current state of artistic expression in Western Culture?" and "What should art be?"

First question: What is Art?
The book begins with Tolstoy summarizing the philosophical discussions and attempts at definition up to that time. He finds that the idea of "beauty" has derailed the discussion, and dismisses beauty as mere pleasure. To Tolstoy, art is "that human activity which consists in one man's conveying to others, through certain external signs, the feelings he has experience, and in others being infected by those feelings and also experiencing them."

Second question: What is the current state of art in Western culture? Tolstoy says that it is in a very bad state, indeed. The vast majority of art since the late middle ages, he says, has been produced by the ruling classes for the primary purpose of inducing pleasure in an ever more exclusive audience. "Art" has become a commodity, and the producers of art - both the creators and those who labour behind the scenes to bring about production - serve no good end other than to amuse a corrupt, idle class of elite consumers. This is probably the most interesting part of the book, in which Tolstoy gives numerous examples of degenerate "art" that was lauded by the educated elite, explaining in great detail all the ways in which such art is false and perverted. There is a very amusing description of his attending a performance of the second night of Wagner's Ring Cycle. He then explains the harmful effects such art has on its audience.

Third question: What should art be?
Art should express the religious consciousness of our time, which he says is a "true Christianity" of man's increasing unity and love for one another. Art should either express man's relationship to God (and, therefor, their brother man), or it should express virtuous emotions common to all men. Such art must also be comprehensible to all people, of every class, creed, and nation. Tolstoy ends the book discussing what he predicts the art of the future will be: Christian, egalitarian, spontaneous, and not produced by professional artists but rather by ordinary labourers, as they feel inspired to do so.

I greatly enjoyed reading this book, and was "with" Tolstoy for a good portion of the book. His arguments on the falseness of art and the bad effects it has on culture seemed convincing to me. However, by the time he was describing what art needs to be, he'd lost me. It sounds as if art in his ideal future will be folk songs and virtuous ballads, with a bit of ornamented craft here and there. That sounds awfully dull, but then I may be a hopelessly depraved, over-educated pervert.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 31, 2010 Jeff rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: my fellow art snobs

Recommended to Jeff by: Anna Karenina

Shelves: 2010, how-to-write-right, lieberry_books, non-fiction

I'm gonna break from tradition and actually write about what i liked rather than just trying (and failing) to express how, where, and why i was amused while reading & thinking about this book.

First of all, i was very amused at many points. Tolstoy's ideas about art amuse me when he gets all, "This is Good and that is Bad." Cracks me up, but i also feel like i understand why he felt that way. And i appreciate his ideals.

I can't imagine anybody else would ever make this comparison, but David S ...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 04, 2011 Robert rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Loved his comparison of Wagner to smoking opium...

Is art intended to covey emotions, or some not purely intellectual message, directed toward encouraging moral and/or ethical behavior? I do not know that I agree with such a narrow definition, though clearly art can not be purely considered to be about depicting beauty as Tolstoy points out. The aesthetics of the time may have focus art as beauty - they were wrong; but perhaps Tolstoy here has gone a little too far in cofining art to only communi...more

like · see review

Aug 28, 2007 Ann M rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

A communist, yet still bourgeois view of artists as egocentric and parasitic. He raises good questions, such as how to recognize art, but seems to think that the inability to answer them is the fault of art and artists. I did like his definition of art as spiritual union. But what does that say about people who love reality TV?

1 like · like · see review

Oct 30, 2010 Aya rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: russian-literature, translation

The first time I read Tolstoy I wanted to throw up. We have a collection of his "Short Fictions" and there were a few passages about women that made me feel uniquely uncomfortable. There's a lot of anxious power behind his words (reading him in the original must feel like falling down a staircase) This is an extremely well written book at times but also, ridiculous. The vivisection of Wagner and Beethoven leave us..miffed. Yes at times he is right (should Wagner be included in the canon? I am no...more The first time I read Tolstoy I wanted to throw up. We have a collection of his "Short Fictions" and there were a few passages about women that made me feel uniquely uncomfortable. There's a lot of anxious power behind his words (reading him in the original must feel like falling down a staircase) This is an extremely well written book at times but also, ridiculous. The vivisection of Wagner and Beethoven leave us..miffed. Yes at times he is right (should Wagner be included in the canon? I am not always sure) about the dismissive nature of the label 'great literature' 'great art' and even 'art' but, living as we do in the 21st century I think we can easily dismiss his hopes for a popular culture.
There is nothing wrong with the examination of What is Art? What is it, after all? But Tolstoy makes a few mis-steps in his decision to find something moral and sentimental and evocative artistic. My mother, for example, is often moral, sentimental and evocative--but she doesn't deserve to be called art. (She is 'artful' and I think this is an interesting argument he doesn't fully explore)
And of course, the emotional surges that the writing rises and falls with lay open a larger, perhaps more interesting issue, of the artist's separation from art. How can creators view the rest of creation? Their own creation? And there is a distinct alienation here, I think, between the writer and the forms he has known. There is a reliance upon the Christian faith but an absence of true spiritual connection to it. Compare the writing of "Mere Christianity" or "The Problem of Pain" to this. That, to me then, is interesting. If artists, as creators, are driven into a more complex relationship with reality but also with God, because of their own imaginative and authorial forces?
(Coledridge linked imagination to 'to infinite I am who am' and Blake supports a thorough examination of reality through narrative structure...I think there's something interesting at work here, where Tolstoy seems to only see darkness)
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 Arestelle rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

That beauty is not the purpose of art - that the purpose of art is to cause its audience to share a feeling that the artist needed to express - and that it should be judged on its effectiveness and the moral value of the feeling shared is an interesting proposition. Unfortunately, Tolstoy seems to have written this book under the belief that simply bludgeoning readers with his central claims would make those claims true, or would prove them.

...Also, I suspect that on Tolstoy's definition, Tard t...more

like · see review

Sep 10, 2011 Pavel rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, russian, books-that-defined-my-art, mmm-this-is-clever

- What has started as a religious and folk art, turned into art for rich estates. Art for rich people is what gives them some sort of pleasure (different kinds of beauty)
- Religious art was pushed aside and all money, critics, art schools were concentrated in art for rich estates.
- True art has to express some feeling that was expienced by an artist him/herself, while art for rich estates demands beauty and grace, each time more and more sophisticated.
- That art for rich estates, which nowdays i...more - What has started as a religious and folk art, turned into art for rich estates. Art for rich people is what gives them some sort of pleasure (different kinds of beauty)
- Religious art was pushed aside and all money, critics, art schools were concentrated in art for rich estates.
- True art has to express some feeling that was expienced by an artist him/herself, while art for rich estates demands beauty and grace, each time more and more sophisticated.
- That art for rich estates, which nowdays is treated as only art, has no connection with true folk's art, it is knownonly by insignificant number of people and in reality is a fake art.
- It severely corrupts ordinary people when they are touched by that fake art.
- Since number of people who understand art of rich estates is so insignificant, it has no meaning at all, despite what is being attributted to it. Those elitists who claim art to be a priviledge for f Nitcshian' supermen, are more sincere then those who say that art has some positive impact on people in general.
- As a result modern art describes only vanity, melancoly and lust .
- Art for those rich estates is only amusement, something to kill tons of free time those people have and hide their laziness and idleness.
- Any amusement tends to get old at some moment so those people are always looking for new kinds of amusement. In the end they reached a point when there's no new kinds, so they declare there's nothing more to create and started to look for new forms of amusement instead of kinds. Someone takes some unsual form, renews it with porno details, which weren't allowed before and art lovers declare such inventor a great writer.
- At the same time there's no reason to abuse such inventor: even if we don't like what he's doing and do like what has been done before and we will start to critisize him for the hights of Leonardo, Bach or someone else, we will only look from previous art position, which is also obscure for majority of people.
- Art becomes obscure or even ceases to be an art when it has one goal - to entertain rich estates. The problem is that it is very hard goal: those people are world-weary and it is impossible to create even lowest kind of art without some kind of inner ability. That's why they have to create new ways to make something that at least looks like art. Those ways are: borrowing, imitation, amaziness and amusement.
- Talanted people are no rarity at all. There's nothing special about them. A man has to have the highest level of outlook for his time, has to experience some feeling and has to have potential and desire to express that feeling and also a talent to do it.
- What really happens is that a young man creates something, driven by his feeeling, his work becomes well-known and criitics are saying that his work is not bad but it isn't on the same level as Dante or Beethoven or Raphael and the artist starts to imitate those who were held up as an example. His work will be very poor now, mainly it will be fake art.
- Main feature of great art is a contagion, when recipient gets some feeling of an artist. That can happen when artist's feeling was very special, very clear and very sincere.
- His own books Tolstoy treats as that bad kinf of art, for the rich people.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Nov 16, 2008 Todd rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Todd by: H.O. Mounce

Tolstoy's work in aesthetics, What is Art? deals with two main issues: (1) Is there a moral justification for the lives, money, and resources spent in the artworld, and (2) What is the nature of art? Tolstoy claims that the nature of genuine art is to transfer feelings from the artist to others, thereby uniting the artist and audience; thus, art is a means of communion. And Tolstoy argues that there is no justification for most of what passes as art in the contemporary world. Most of it, he says...more

3 likes · like · see review

Dec 04, 2007 Kyle rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

So, an old guy walks into a theatre while a company rehearses an opera, and starts to form an idea about how much the art's world consumes people's lives, to such humiliating results, and he spends the next fifteen years writing about how bad false art is, while suggesting the true art is something akin to true Christianity. One key element that is missing is that people have as much passion for their art, and such passion may not be a bad thing. I was only sorta persuaded by his many arguments,...more

like · see review

Mar 21, 2012 Brian rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: musicology

Tolstoy raised some very interesting points and - as Kandinsky, Rothko, and others afterwards - he assaulted this self-indulgent notion of artists who created "art for art's sake" and devoid of any type of meaning to the individual (ie. Wagner, Baudeaire, Beethoven, etc. ...) I believe it to be one of the most important philosophical works stemming from the late 19th-century and have used this work in tandem with Kivy's "A Philosophy of Music" when teaching aesthetics and philosophy.

like · see review

Apr 11, 2009 Laura Wetsel rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy-theory, russian

Artists, aesthetes, scholars--beware! According to Tolstoy, art schools create counterfeit artists, art criticism understands nothing about art, and Christianity is the only true salvation for the art world. Beethoven, Shakespeare, Wagner, and more notable artists of our Western history are castrated and left no mercy. But don't worry, Don Quijote is left on his pedestal, as he should be.

like · see review

Nov 28, 2010 Marydanielle added it · review of another edition

I'm sorry this had such a big influence on me at a young age. I now think he's quite wrong, and I think he silences art with his strict theory. And if only I'd read Anna Karenina before reading this, I'd have known he was full of it, as his own work absolutely negates this reductive aesthetic theory.

like · see review

Aug 01, 2009 Mark B. rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: museum-books

Read this way back in the day as an undergraduate for a seminar on Contemporary Art Issues. It indeed had an impact on forming my perception of art as an infection of feelings from artist to audience. 20 years later, it's probably worth a re-read...

1 like · like · see review

Mar 08, 2009 S added it · review of another edition

Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy
1828-1910

1897

It seemed he was an unhappy man. The introduction suggests he wrestled with religiousness within himself.

He was an aristocrat.

Wikipedia says he kept aloof from the intelligentsia.

like · see review

Mar 07, 2011 Stacie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: i-love-russia, non-fiction, borrowed

I liked how this book was organized, and I liked that Tolstoy gave the various definitions of art and beauty were/are...how these definitions have changed over the course of many years. For such a short book, I felt it had a great amount of information and was clear to understand.

Sometimes, Leo even made me chuckle with his opinions of some of the artists (poets, painters and musicians) he discussed.

Does Tolstoy definitively answer the question, What is Art? I am not going to tell you. You have...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 29, 2010 LeAnne marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Shelves: literature

I didn't get very far in this. Should come back to it.

like · see review

Jul 20, 2009 Nile rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

amazing the spin he put on art and beauty.

like · see review

Apr 11, 2013 Morgan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Brilliant. Love reading Tolstoy's thought process.

like · see review

Jul 10, 2011 Beth rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

so much about this pissed me off.

like · see review

Sep 26, 2010 Michael rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Great look at the history of art.

like · see review

Jul 09, 2012 Mohammed Galal rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

FASCINATING!!

like · see review

Oct 28, 2007 Elsie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Tolstoy describes the work of every aesthetic philosopher in history and then says why they're all really stupid. I like it :). I REALLY like the class-based analysis of art criticism. My only problem is that he's too proud of his over-simplification. Makes me like Baudelaire MORE when he tries to bash him. Tolstoy doesn't account for European artists who were dirt poor and were not trying to please the monied classes. I might write my final paper on him and the Impressionists (and Marcuse?).

like · see review

Apr 11, 2013 MiChAeLPaUl marked it as fini · review of another edition

Shelves: audiobooks, non-fiction

What art is and is not is examined.

like · see review

Jan 23, 2009 Jim Hahn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Tolstoy, thank you for writing this-- I now know most of what we call Art we should call Not Art. I know John Gardner thanks you as well, had you not written this he would have never pulled off _On Moral Fiction_. What is next for Team Tolstoy? Let's do brunch.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 50 51 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (24)

More editions...

Genres

Art

29 users

Philosophy

29 users

Non Fiction

17 users

Cultural > Russia

10 users

Classics

6 users

Literature > Russian Literature

5 users

Literature

4 users

Writing > Essays

4 users

History

2 users

Culture

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Leo Tolstoy

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider To...more

More about Leo Tolstoy...

Books by Leo Tolstoy

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About What Is Art?

2 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from What is Art?

“The business of art lies just in this, -- to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and inaccessible.” — 64 people liked it

“Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man's emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity.” — 8 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: What Is Art?
avg rating	preview: What Is Art? Goodreads rating: 3.58 (644 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/635469.What_Is_Art_?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1359617262l/635469.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/635469.What_Is_Art_?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy[/url]

What Is Art? (Library of Liberal Arts)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website