Copyright © 2018 Daniel Joseph Cabal All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. A NEO-TOLSTOYAN RESPONSE TO KITSCH __________________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________________ by Daniel Joseph Cabal December 2018 APPROVAL SHEET A NEO-TOLSTOYAN RESPONSE TO KITSCH Daniel Joseph Cabal Read and Approved by: __________________________________________ Mark T. Coppenger (Chair) __________________________________________ Esther R. Crookshank __________________________________________ James Parker III Date______________________________ For Jesus, Mendy, Sophie, and Jet; Love is stronger than death. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii PREFACE ........................................................................................................................ viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 Outline of the Argument .....................................................................................4 Definitions ...........................................................................................................9 2. INFLUENCES IN TOLSTOY’S LIFE AND AESTHETIC THOUGHT ...........16 Tolstoy’s Influence............................................................................................20 Religious Influences in Russia ..........................................................................27 Tolstoy’s Apparent Conversion ........................................................................36 3. OVERVIEW OF TOLSTOY’S WHAT IS ART? ..................................................45 Reception History..............................................................................................46 Tolstoy’s Discussion of Beauty ........................................................................51 The Infection Theory of Art ..............................................................................54 Morality in Art ..................................................................................................66 Communion in Art ............................................................................................72 Need for Artwork to be New .............................................................................78 The Effect of Art on Artists, Critics, Distributors, and the Public ....................79 Philosophical Influences on Tolstoy’s Aesthetic ..............................................81 iv Chapter Page 4. TOWARD A NEO-TOLSTOYAN AESTHETIC ...............................................86 Morality as a Criterion of Art............................................................................87 Tolstoy’s Insistence on Universally Understood Artworks ..................... 96 Tolstoy’s Rejection of His Own Art ...................................................... 103 Tolstoy’s Rejection of Well-Regarded Artworks ...........................................107 Tolstoy’s Ideal Audience and a Neo-Tolstoyan Ideal Audience ....................110 Art, Agency, and Censorship ..........................................................................112 Additional Objections to Tolstoy’s Aesthetic .................................................116 The Objections of C.E.M. Joad and Robert Sharpe ............................... 116 The Objections of Richard I.G. Hughes and Caryl Emerson ................ 127 The Objections of Charles Kaplan and John Fisher .............................. 130 5. A CARTOGRAPHY OF KITSCH: DEFINING BOUNDARIES .....................133 Introduction .....................................................................................................133 Assigning Meaning to the Word “Kitsch” ......................................................135 Kitsch as Two Tears ........................................................................................137 Kitsch as Saccharine .......................................................................................139 Kitsch as Blindness to Evil .............................................................................142 Kitsch as Camp ...............................................................................................143 Kitsch According to Kulka’s Analytic Philosophy .........................................146 Kitsch as Equivalent to Good Art?..................................................................148 Responding to the Paradox of Fiction .............................................................150 The Relationship of Perception, Emotion, and Reason...................................160 v Chapter Page 6. REASSEMBLING KITSCH ..............................................................................168 The Most Challenging Conception of Kitsch .................................................168 The History of Greenberg’s View of Kitsch ...................................................171 Comprehensive View of Kitsch ......................................................................176 The Challenge of Greenberg’s View of Kitsch ...............................................177 Replying to Greenberg’s Conception of Kitsch ..............................................178 7. A NEO-TOLSTOYAN AESTHETIC RESPONDS TO KITSCH .....................183 A Re-Appraisal of Kitsch’s Place in Art .........................................................183 A Neo-Tolstoyan Matrix .................................................................................191 Using the Neo-Tolstoyan Matrix to Analyze Artworks ..................................195 8. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................207 Outline of Tolstoy’s Aesthetic ........................................................................207 The Nuances of a Neo-Tolstoyan Aesthetic ...................................................208 Contours and Challenges of Kitsch Theory ....................................................209 How to Judge the Morality of Kitsch ..............................................................210 Final Considerations and Implications ............................................................213 Appendix THE SIXTY-FOUR AESTHETIC THINKERS ADDRESSED BY TOLSTOY IN WHAT IS ART? ....................................................................217 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 221 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Picture of kitsch objects by Dydia DeLyser ..........................................................12 2. The first color photograph taken in Russia, showing Leo Tolstoy in 1908 ..........16 3. Sher-ruff Paws .....................................................................................................145 4. Categories of pictures ..........................................................................................186 5. A Neo-Tolstoyan Matrix .....................................................................................192 6. Where “E” stands for emotional impact, “M” stands for morality, and capitalization corresponds to strength of impact/morality. .................................192 7. The Gossips .........................................................................................................197 8. The Connoisseur ..................................................................................................199 9. Untitled photograph of Pablo Picasso by Bjon Mili ............................................202 10. Untitled picture of anti-police kitsch .................................................................203 vii PREFACE Oh, that space permitted the inclusion of everyone who has enriched my life, because a doctoral degree is not earned in addition to one’s life but seemingly in place of it for a period of years. Here, I have space only to thank those whose influence in the doctoral program has been greatest, with family first. My mother instructed me in appreciation of the arts in childhood and has now equaled that kindness with years of the encouragement unique to motherhood. My father inculcated my interest in philosophy and has matched those heady days in the past with practical tips for surviving a doctoral program in the present. My mother- and father-in-law incentivized the completion of my dissertation with a gift whose absence would have extended the writing process by months, if not years; I extend all my family deep thanks. Next, I am grateful to the professors (and students) whose insights I gleaned in colloquia and seminars. In particular, my gratitude goes to Jim Parker, for his stories of how aesthetics collides with apologetics and philosophy of religion in the real world, Esther Crookshank, for her ability to exfoliate dense musical theory so that the meaning shines through, and Douglas Blount, for an amazing class in Christianity and pop culture that first exposed me to Tolstoy’s What is Art? Most of all, I’ve been impacted by Mark Coppenger, doctoral supervisor par excellence, a man whose learning is oceanic in