Response to Sarah's Question

This is in response to Sarah’s question, “What happens when a work had been intended to possess a specific emotion but the emotion was never captured by observers?”
We have been talking about Tolstoy in class, so I will start with an answer dependant on his definition of art. According to Tolstoy, art is a way to communicate emotion. By communicating emotion, the artist connects the artist with the audience, and this unification has helped us evolve. If the emotion is not captured by the observers, the art has failed—it has not served as effective communication, and no one has been unified.
Now to think of this question without applying it to Tolstoy…
I would say that if the artist intended the emotion to be captured and it isn’t, then the art has failed. Emotion is somewhat abstract, so I will simplify the situation; if the artist painted a picture of a horse, but the audience perceived a cat, then the art has failed. In the same way, if the artist attempted to convey happiness, and the audience was either untouched or moved to a different emotion, then the art has failed. It may still be pleasurable, but not everything pleasurable it art. Thus, art intended to communicate an emotion which does not succeed is failed art.
QUESTION: Tolstoy says that beauty is “that which pleases us without awakening out lust” (Wartenberg 104). Why shouldn’t beauty awaken our lust? Can art awaken our lust?