Mr.Tolstoy has a very strange way of defining what art is and how good it is. this is very (Strangely) topical at the moment, Tolstoy says that only good art must have certain qualities to be considered good art. the first he says that a piece of the artist soul must enter (possess) the subject who is viewing the art in question. Second, how infectious is the feeling that the artist is trying to convey. The more Infectious to other people who are consuming the art the better. Lastly, the strength of the Infection. If the art can infect people, then it can be considered “art” but if it can infect more the it is considered “better art”. So, what he is saying that art can only be considered if the artist is able to convey their meaning from the art to the people who is consuming it gets what the artist is trying to convey (their message). The more of the artist message that the people get, the more pleasure that can derived from the art. I don’t believe that this is a good way to determine what is good art. Many people see things that the artist didn’t intend to convey and isn’t infectious. What I define what is “good art” if it has the ability to make you feel things. This feeling could be anything as long as you feel something, it doesn’t matter what the artist is trying to convey if the art moves you in any way. It could only be that you feel this way and the person that is next to you feels something else, it doesn’t matter if you felt something that it is good art. Saying that art is infectious is too strange to compare to art thus make it good art. The more ferrous the “infection” the better the art is too strange.
Pedro's blog 