Second Question on Tolstoy

Could not a piece of art arguably be even more “infectious” if it evokes many different feelings in its observers?


Of course. Art does not have to simply communicate one emotion or another for it to truly be art. People will always have different interpretations of art all the time, but that doesn't mean that a piece of art isn't art because of that. Sure, the artist may try to convey one emotion, but it isn't his fault if his audience receives it differently than expected. In fact, if people interpret art differently, then it just opens up a wider audience, especially if a person's art is ambiguous enough.


That is one of the great things about art: a person can derive so much meaning from just a singer painting or poem, it doesn't just have to be a single feeling or emotion. If an artist can infect a mass of people with their art because it is so ambiguous and can evoke many different feelings and emotions, then they are even more so artists than that which Tolstoy describes.