In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 4)

Tolstoy’s theory on the definition of art has several potential contradictions. While Tolstoy believes that the only way for a piece of work to be considered art (or successful art) is to have the artist convey a specific intended emotion, there is a lot of variability in different onlookers perspectives because all art in its multiple forms is extremely subjective. I believe that Tolstoy’s theory of art is too limited. If a work successfully conveys the intended emotion to one observer, but not to another, the piece should still be considered art. From Tolstoy’s perspective, it seems as though the work should only be considered art to the observer who received the intended emotion from looking at the piece. According to Tolstoy’s definition of art, this scenario would violate the theory of non-contradiction because the same object is considered both art and not art which is against Plato’s idea that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. I think that Tolstoy’s theory is flawed in this case. Tolstoy’s theory could hold more truth if it were generalized to saying that if an object conveys the intended emotion to at least one observer it should be considered art. This definition should also include the artist himself. Just because an individual does not understand the piece to the degree to which he or she could receive an emotion from viewing it, does not mean that the emotion is not there or cannot be there when the observer gains a better understanding of the piece itself. How would Tolstoy justify the idea that an observer could see a work and not receive the intended emotion from it but then a year later view the same work but with a greater knowledge of the piece and get the emotion? Was the same work not considered to be art a year before because the observer did not get the emotion then? Here the observer changes, not the work itself.