Is Tolstoy wrong for saying something isn't art just because the viewer doesn't feel the intended emotion? 
This question was recently raised by Sean in his last blog entry. I strongly believe that Tolstoy is wrong by saying something isn't art just because a viewer does not feel the emotion the artist originally intended. Work has always been mis-interpreted by the masses, but that certainly does not mean the work isn't art at all. This means that the audience has failed to recognize the meaning behind the art, not necessarily that the artist has failed to portray the correct emotion or message behind the piece. The intention for the piece will always be there, whether or not the audience can understand is a different question completely. If a piece isn't understood by an audience or individual it doesn't mean that the creativity and passion were not put into a work of art. 
For centuries literature and works of art were misinterpreted by viewers and readers alike. Many artist intended certain themes, however readers or viewers found other themes as well. For instance, Earnest Hemingway intended his novel "The Old Man and the Sea" to be just a story and nothing more. He did not intend any sort of themes which readers have since found within its pages. 


What is art which doesn't have any intended emotion?