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?