FROM ROMANTICISM TO REALISM: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DUALITY PRESENT IN LEO TOLSTOY'S WORK, RESURRECTION

Abstract

According to the Russian author Leo Tolstoy, after the Renaissance, art distanced itself from the people and began to cater to the tastes of the elite. He defines art as a sincere expression of feelings capable of affecting the public. Tolstoy advocates for simple, accessible, and socially significant art. Abrams, in turn, revises aesthetic theories and highlights four elements: artist, work, universe, and public. He returns to the mimetic tradition, understanding art as an imitation of the universe since Plato and Aristotle. The expressive theory, according to Abrams, sees art as an externalization of the artist's feelings. Both relate art to sincerity and truth, considering its impact on the public. Abrams also mentions the use of biographical elements in works, such as in studies on Shakespeare. Thus, the objective of this work is to discuss the concepts of art in Tolstoy and M. H. Abrams, highlighting similarities and differences between them. Since Tolstoy agrees with Abrams regarding sincerity, he criticizes the Renaissance and Romanticism for valuing empty beauty. For him, these elite arts produce simulacra, not true feelings. The novel Resurrection exemplifies his ideas and mixes romantic and realistic traits. In the work, Nekhliúdov seeks to redress the injustice committed against Maslova, linked to their shared past. The novel has a strong social dimension and financially helped the persecuted Dukhobors. Therefore, it can be concluded that Tolstoy and Abrams value art as a communication of feelings, but they diverge regarding the role of aesthetic movements and beauty.