I like Tolstoy's argument that all art is emotion. Art is important in part because it allows us to experience other people's emotions, see things from their perspective, and get a different view on an issue. Looking at a painting by someone else and being moved to any emotion by it indicates that the art is moving and that the viewer is sympathetic, and sympathy is a basic human trait, one which we need to survive as a race.

Art as pure emotion seems rare. Even abstract painters are not necessarily pouring their feelings straight onto the canvas. That doesn't mean that art can't hold an incredible amount of emotion in it. We ascribe emotions to the people in paintings we see, we notice the mood of it, we even notice the color palate as it relates to the feel of the painting. Sometimes we don't realize we're doing these things, but do them anyway.

I agree with Tolstoy in part. I think that there is always emotion behind art, and that art should be inclusive rather than exclusive. However, I don't think the artist always intends for the emotion to be there. It may happen by accident, or because the artist is trying for one mood but is in another. The emotion a painting evokes in you might not always be the one intended.

Is art still successful if it doesn't make you feel what the artist intended? When is art unsuccessful?

"It's hopeless. I can hear all this great music in my head but my stupid hands can't keep up."
– Phillip J Fry.

Plato's idea of an “imitation of an imitation” strikes a chord with me because of a memory I have from childhood. As a kid, I had a lot of artistic friends and influences. I was really enthralled with the way certain people managed to make completely fantastic things with just a pencil and paper. One of my first babysitters, Jen, was an art student and a good teacher. She was one of the first people to tell me that all I needed to create art was practice. She got me canvases from The Art Store and let me use her oil paints.

I still have the biggest painting I did with her, which is: A unicorn jumping through the air in front of three giant flowers. There is possibly a stream on the ground. It's not a very good picture. I remember constantly being frustrated at that age because my idea of what good art was did not match up with my personal ability to create it. I had, well... stupid hands.

That's my strongest memory of that type of frustration, but of course it still happens to me all the time. I can imagine what I want to draw, but my hands can't always put it onto paper. I dream about writing something beautiful and then can't remember what I was trying to say. It's mostly annoying because it makes you really aware of how your talent stacks up against your expectations, so you're constantly disappointed in yourself.

I took Plato's idea to mean that there's nothing more pure than a concept, and that all concepts are changed in execution.

Every person experiences a work of art differently, and so it follows that every person also has their own take on what art they prefer and what qualifies something as art. Personally, I like for art to make me feel something, whether it makes me crack a smile, tear up, or evokes a sense of wonder. Art that can accomplish this has always stood out to me as very powerful because the artist has taken tools that, generally, anyone has access to, and has used these simple tools to make me feel something complex and personal. However, I know that my opinion is biased, and in order to discuss art with anyone whose opinion might be different, I have to broaden my view of what art, at its core, is. To me, the idea of intentionality seems like a bad fit. It gives a free pass to anyone with an inflated ego while discounting natural beauty and the artistry of everyday life.
In the end, no two people can see art identically. Looking at and appreciating art isn't really a shared experience, because no two people experience it in the same way. Instead, every viewer is going one on one with the artist.

In your opinion, is all art a private experience?