So there was a topic brought up during class this week that i felt could be talked about a bit more. I understand that tolstoy believes that a piece of art can only be a successful piece of art if the intended emotion of the artist is communicated to the observer. But what would tolstoy think of art that is able to evoke many extremes of different emotions. Like a painting I think of in particular would be Bosche's triptych, "the garden of earthly delights". Some person could look at it and feel inexplicable awe at the skill and vastness of things which is contained in this painting. And someone else could look at it and be completely and utterly disgusted and call it an atrocity of mangled bodies and absurdity. And some other people may just, honestly, say "what on earth (or not) was he thinking?!!! this makes no sense". How do we know if the artist intended for only one single emotion, and with a piece as complicated and not obvious as this, how are we to know what the artist was thinking? We cant very well ask him. But he has evoked a set of emotions. If there is an intended set of emotions, than tolstoy would probably say that it was successful, but the artist was not specific enough in his emotions and intentions. Pieces like this can also evoke a pleasure in the viewer, and i think it is a different kind of pleasure that is derived from other kinds of paintings which convey another kind of subjective beauty. This may be a pleasure at the absurd, instead of a pleasure of something that touches an individual on a deep level.

So my question for right now is, if an artist intends for his work to have a specific emotion, and only one person feels that emotion, is it still art? or does it need to be universally accepted?