In 'What is art?' Tolstoy appears to compare the purpose of art to the purpose of food, claiming that false views of art appear to be similar to claiming pleasant taste is the purpose of food. However, does Tolstoy ignore the fact that taste was once an indicator of edible food for man in nature, thus serving a practical purpose? Assuming that this is correct and that taste is for identifying edible food, does this mean that society has over the years abused the true purpose of taste? If this is the case, applying this to art would mean that primitive art related to nature serves a higher purpose and has been corrupted by society. It would mean that primitive art would be a way of advancing society, rather than society and morality advancing art, in the same way that taste (in it's original sense) was a way of identifying nutritious food. So, is Tolstoy's belief that art is advanced by morality and civilisation corrupted by assuming that the purpose of taste is for pleasure only?
Thank you for your time, and apologies if it doesn't make too much sense!
Imo it's pure nonsens, usually what posetivly stimulates our senses will we deem as good, that's why many naive and easily swayed people will end up in trouble.
Sugar filled substances taste good, candy, soft drinks ..etc, but it will fatten you and lead to diabetes.
A liver from an animal does not taste good in itself, but are ritch on D vitamins.
People with the OP's claim is nothing more than Fashion Dictators, who can preach as they like to the naive and manipulative people. We have all seen how women wear corsette both in medival and modern time, often with great inconveniance, but serves purely for group think's prestige.