An Objective Definition of Art

Reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know.-Alan Watts

Today in class, we identified a problem in Tolstoy´s claim that in order for an artist to succeed, his work must communicate a specific emotion. That problem was that artist failure is all too possible, and furthermore, probable, if the observer does not understand the intent of the artist. While I understand the dilemma and limitations within this requisite, I can see why Tolstoy imposed such a claim in his theory. As we know, Tolstoy views beauty and pleasure as qualities of, but not the definition of, art. Beauty and pleasure are exclusively subjective. The error in supposing that the aim or art is to create beauty or experience pleasure, argues Tolstoy, is that we consider pleasure good because it is pleasure and beauty good because it is beautiful. Nevertheless, we have yet to define either beauty or pleasure objectively. Therefore, what many people often consider a definition of art is actually a subjective interpretation and justification for overly inclusive categorization of certain creations. Perhaps Tolstoy´s reason for such a claim is to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible. After all, isn´t the purpose of finding the qualities and requirements of art to eventually arrive at an objective and common definition that we can all agree upon? This would not be possible if everything was left open to interpretation.

Secondly, Tolstoy asserts that art can make a man better morally and socially. If a piece of art expresses a SPECIFIC emotion and its observer in turn feels what the artist did, then the artist has been successful in opening the observer up to a world of feelings beyond himself-- an objective world of common human experience despite an individual past.

Consider the common Rorschach ink blot. In psychiatry, it is often theorized that individuals in a negative mindset will interpret an ink blot as something negative, such as fire, while those in an optomisitc state of mind will see something positive, such as a butterfly. Is there only one way too look at (listen to, perform, or absorb) an a singular art form? Must art be objective or subjective? If not either extreme, how could we find the right balance of the two?