In response to Kim Pincus...

In Kim’s post she mentions how, according to Tolstoy, a work must “effectively infect” its intended audience in order to be considered art.  This word choice is right on point for defending the argument Kim raises. Surely enough, any work of art can in some way infect any given viewer, critic, etc, but in Tolstoy’s opinion, it is only when the artist infects the audience with the emotion he himself felt that the work is legitimately art.  It is seemingly unfair for Tolstoy to expect every painting, sculpture, dance, etc. (in order to be considered a work of art) to evoke the emotion the artist intended to convey.  Yet we would undoubtedly consider a painting a work of art, correct? Surely, someone may exclaim, “That’s not art!” simply because they don’t like it, but a painting wouldn’t be categorized under a grouping other than art. If we take away taste as a deciding factor, then we are left with a simple set of rules which defines what makes art--and to Tolstoy that is effective emotional infection, not individual taste. 

Looking to  a different version of Kim's example of a war work:  certainly no one who has not gone to war can ever fully feel the emotions of anger, sadness, shock, etc. that someone who has gone to war would feel when looking at the same painting. Having similar life experiences is what makes us part of the same framework, yet, it each individual’s experiences vary in numerous ways, giving every one of us different perspectives, especially when it comes to viewing art.  A person who went to university to study art will have an entirely different view of a painting than the casual museum goer; a dancer will have a different level of emotion, or even different emotions, than someone who is just attending the ballet for the first time; a musician will critique a performance much differently than the person just listening to a song on the radio. Being at various stages of life, having gone through different experiences at different times and in different ways with varying outcomes, embracing different passions than the next person—all of these things make us who we are and, thus, how we see art. 

To the example of a song, a single song may raise different emotions to the same person when they are in varying states--lyrics to an individual when they have entered an exciting new relationship, for example, may come across having an entirely different meaning down the road when that same individual goes through a breakup and sees everything in a very different light.  

I think if Tolstoy were to point out, as Kim states, that "people are of often guided by their emotions," and then say how this, in turn, affects taste during varying life stages, experiences, etc., then Tolstoy would be on the way to a more fulfilling meaning of What is art?