However, genuine "infection" is not the only criterion for good art. The good art vs. bad art issue unfolds into two directions. One is the conception that the stronger the infection, the better is the art. The other concerns the subject matter that accompanies this infection, which leads Tolstoy to examine whether the emotional link is a feeling that is worth creating. Good art, he claims, fosters feelings of universal brotherhood. Bad art inhibits such feelings. All good art has a Christian message, because only Christianity teaches an absolute brotherhood of all men. However, this is "Christian" only in a limited meaning of the word. Art produced by artistic elites is almost never good, because the upper class has entirely lost the true core of the Christian religion.

Among other artists, he specifically condemns Wagner and Beethoven as examples of overly cerebral artists, who lack real emotion. Furthermore, Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 cannot claim to be able to "infect" their audience, as it pretends, with the feeling of unity and therefore cannot be considered good art. Children's songs and folk tales are superior to the work of Wagner and Beethoven.

Not familiar with what Tolstoy said, so I googled it:



:listening:

I think it's an interesting analogy though. We could say that the true purpose of food is to provide nutrition, but people often go by best tasting. Except, our taste evolved as an indicator of what to eat as you pointed out.

But still, I think you could argue that art has some true purpose, and that people often look at the surface in some way instead, comparable to the food analogy.

Would taste not act as a primitive indicator as to what is edible, and further understanding and knowledge of the food prevent tasty junk food from being eaten? In this way the taste (as in nature) acts as an indicator of what can be eaten without instant negative effects on the body. The quantity however, is to be determined via experience and knowledge. Through this very basic function of taste compared to art, could it be said that beauty and pleasure provide a basic indicator of what we can use to convey morality and emotion, with our knowledge and experience limiting the feelings expressed in art?

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!