Tolstoy might be right, but who knows?

Infectiousness, according to Tolstoy, is the determining factor of art’s excellence. By infectiousness, Tolstoy means that an artist’s work must bring the viewer of the art some sort of emotion. Anything that evokes an emotion or particular feeling that an author or artist creates is art, and for Tolstoy, art without infectiousness is really not art at all. The relatable feeling that a work of art can move in both the audience and the artist is the power that unifies the two. The unification between the viewer of art and the artist is infectiousness. The more feeling art evokes in a person the more it becomes art, and the more brilliance it has.

Tolstoy’s standards of infectiousness relies on three factors:

  1. the degree of individuality that the feeling being conveyed has
  2. how clear the feeling is being communicated
  3. the magnitude of genuineness the artist feels themselves about the emotion being conveyed

If the person receiving the art is satisfied and can clearly understand/ feel a specific emotion that the artist is communicating, then the artist has successfully done their job. The viewer should feel like they have related to the artist on a deep level through the expression of art, and if the artist themselves have truly felt the emotion they’re conveying, then the better the art is.

While this way of evaluating the excellence of art is very justifiable and I do agree with the overall point of the standards, there are so many other determining factors of “good” art. Whether it be music, photography, film, literature, etc., art is probably the most subjective thing there is in the world. Even if an emotion is brought to an audience from a work of art, it doesn’t automatically make the art great or groundbreaking. If excellence depended solely on the infectiousness of an artist’s work, there would be plenty of art that wouldn’t be considered good. When people walk into a museum of art, do they all agree that every single piece in there is “good” or “art” at all? Once visiting the San Francisco MOMA on a school field trip, my friends and I walked around the exhibits and we came across a painting with an all white canvas, and we all wondered how it was even considered art and why it was in the museum. Looking back at that moment, I realize that we might not have felt an emotion by staring at the painting, but it could’ve deeply effected others’ feelings, I mean it couldn’t have ended up in the MOMA for no reason at all. I do agree with Tolstoy in that the artist should genuinely feel what they’re trying to express with their art, but, if the audience interprets the art with a different feeling, it doesn’t make the artwork less than.

Tolstoy may not be saying that everyone has to feel an emotion in order for the art to be excellent, but either way the interpretation of art varies and a person shouldn’t have to feel the exact same emotion the artist does. I think as long as the artist is sincere in their emotion towards their art, then it is art, regardless of how a viewer feels when receiving it. What makes art excellent really depends on the individual. Because everyone will evaluate art’s greatness differently, it’s only up to the individual to agree or not agree with another’s opinion.

word count: 567

Unknown's avatar

Published by maricela.h

2 thoughts on “Tolstoy might be right, but who knows?”

  1. I totally agree with you that the interpretation of art varies. The interpretation of art varies because everybody has different perspective and experience. I partially agree with Tolstoy’s statement about art. I believe, just like you, art should make us feel something. However, it doesn’t mean everyone has to feel the exact same way the artist does.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment