In Response to Katie's Question

If someone had a different emotion than Tolstoy was attempting to convey after reading his work War and Peace according to his theory on the definition of art he would have to claim that it was not art to that individual. This concept is partially the reason I find Tolstoy’s definition to be so flawed. It is often the case that the same work of art (for this example, Tolstoy’s book War and Peace) could successfully communicate the intended emotion to one reader but not to another. Should this mean that the work in its entirety should fail to be called art? This would mean that if the whole world was able to pick up on the emotion the artist was trying to convey successfully, but then one individual was not able to do so, the work would not be considered art. If Tolstoy is looking at this definition from an individualist’s perspective it would make more sense to say that the work is not considered art to that one individual but to the rest of the world it is. I think there are many more variables that contribute to a work being considered art other than the emotion that the artist conveys, even though that is a great factor in the definition. All works that generate any emotion should be considered art because the arousal of emotions is an important component to the artist. Even if the artist is not able to bring about the correct emotion to the individual he or she should be considered successful if he or she is able to evoke any emotion at all. If an artist is attempting to convey two emotions in the same work but only one of the emotions is aroused in the observer is it still considered art by Tolstoy’s definition?