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?

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.