RESPONSE TO ED'S QUESTION

I am responding to Ed’s question, “Can art still be said to be a communion between the artist and individual if more than one emotion is shared?”
There are two ways which this question can be interpreted, and so I will address each one.
First; this could be asking if art can create a communion between the artist and the individual if each sees a different emotion in the art. If this is happening then the answer is no—there is no communion. The communion relies on the communication, and if the communication fails then so does the communion.
This could also be asking if the artist and observer both perceive multiple emotions in the painting. If this is the case then yes, there is still communion. In fact, the communion will probably be stronger. Tolstoy’s demand that the artist must be communicating a specific emotion was only to say that the observer must know exactly what the artist was trying to communicate, not that only one emotion can be communicated for communion to succeed.
QUESTION: Wartenberg, in the introduction, descirbes minimalist art as “representing nothing beyond itself” (Wartenberg 2). Is it possible for a work of art to truly represent nothing beyond itself?

Art Cannot Communicate a Specific Emotion

Tolstoy’s definition states that successful art communicates a specific emotion. Putting aside all other problems with this definition, I am questioning whether or not art even could be communication. Language, which is generally a successful form of communication, is successful because we are taught to associate words with specific meanings. Because the definition of a word is laid out for us in plain context, whenever the word is used we know the meaning intended with it. Art, on the other hand, relies on associations made with objects and symbols which may vary from person to person. Any individual may at some point learn to associate an object with an emotion which is not the common emotion associated with that object by everyone else (as shown by Watson’s ‘Little Albert’ experiment http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/Little%20Albert.htm). This individual will not be a possible target of communication through art.
Specificity is crucial for successful communication. Tolstoy realized this, which is why he stated that art must communicate a specific emotion. However, it would be irrational to assume that everyone who looks at a painting will have the same—or even similar—associations with the shapes, objects, or even colors which are present. So, my question for this entry is…
QUESTION: Is it possible for art to be a form of communication?