Philosophy

Tolstoy is correct in his correlation that art is liked and appreciated by more people the more accessible and realistic it is. Some of the most popular artists in the world have painted landscapes, still-life paintings of fruit and flowers, and portraits of famous or important historical figures. These paintings are popular because their subject matter is familiar, making it easy to understand, and viewers can relate to it or are knowledgeable about it. However, a paintings popularity does not automatically equal its greatness. Accessible or easily understandable art is not necessarily good art. Often, art that is abstract evokes greater emotion and deeper thought and reflection than its more simplistic realistic counterpart. Tolstoys statement is incorrect because it fails to take into account the emotional and interpretive value of abstract art.
    Tolstoys statement about which kind of art is the best kind is correct in the belief that realistic, simple art can be emotionally and mentally accessed by more viewers. A simple garden scene can take a viewer back to a time in their childhood when they played in a similar garden, or a memory of a loved one planting or giving them flowers. Simple subject matter, like flowers, dogs, or landscapes are subjects that a wide variety of viewers can relate to. If a viewer has a personal experience or memory that is reflected in the realistic painting, it will be easier to understand and more accessible to the viewer. People can look at these images and translate them based on personal memories or feelings without having to interpret or translate the subject and what it means to them. These subjects are often safe for the viewers. That is, they tend to not be violent, overtly sexual or controversial. The viewer can take them in and reflect on them simply without having to delve deeply into their subconscious or being confronted with confusing or negative emotions.
    Abstract paintings require a lot more interpretation from the viewer must examine a painting and judge for themselves what the work could mean. Often, this meant an exploration deeper into the mind of the viewer than realistic paintings ever required. William Fleming states that surrealistic and abstract paintings indicated a technique for liberating the images trapped in the subconscious and making them available to the conscious mind of the artist for use as the vehicles of his expressive intent (400). Abstract paintings offer no simple explanations and force the viewer to draw their own conclusions or delve deep into their own conscience to determine their interpretation. Abstract paintings have just as much meaning and value to the artist as simple realistic ones do to theirs, but abstract paintings allow each viewer to create an individual interpretation based on what the painting evokes deep within their mind. There is a freedom for the viewer to not have to rely on an artists simple vision, but instead to choose how they see it and what it means to them. By presenting an abstract or surreal image, the artist is taking away the viewers option to take the easy way out and simply see the painting as a reflection of a scene or object that occurs in the real world. The viewer has to evaluate the painting and use their imagination to determine what it means to them. In this sense, abstract or surreal paintings can be considered better than realistic or simple ones. They require more in-depth thought, evoking of emotion, and personal interpretation from the individual viewer.
    Tolstoys opinion that more common emotions can be shared by viewers of simple, realistic paintings is not entirely accurate. Abstract paintings evoke just as many emotions from viewers, and its quite possible that the emotions evoked from an abstract painting are even more deeply felt because the viewer had to look deep in their subconscious to interpret them. Though abstract paintings require more individual interpretation, they can cause viewers to feel the same emotions and interpret it in similar ways.