Art's Malleability

we discussed on wednesday morning the possibility that artists may create art dualistic in its emotional nature. that is, the artist may have fully intended one group of people to respond with one emotion, another to respond with a different emotion, and a third to perhaps respond indifferently. does this dualistic nature conflict with art's "artness"?

tolstoy claims that art is art when it successfully communicates a felt emotion on the behalf of the artist to the viewer (-forgive me if this definition is vague or inaccurate, i attempted to summarize a brilliant mind's view of art in a sentence). if the artist intends happiness to be communicated via a picture of a romping pup, but the viewer of the art just lost a pup very much like the one in the art, is the art still art? does it depend on if the majority of the viewers feel the emotion the artist meant to be felt, or is it case specific? the art is not art to the person whose pup was lost, but is to everyone who was accurately communicated to?

what about a portrayal of a battlefield whose fight recently agated, the soldiers of which we'll say for the sake of argument hail new zealand and australia. one side clearly lost. the artist is an NZer. is it still art to the aussies?

i postulate that, as long as the artist created the piece feeling SOME type of emotion, and the viewer perceives the art with SOME type of emotion attached, then the piece is art.

then again, i don't exactly get riled up looking at a flower vase, but the sculptor certainly poured intention and emotion both into the piece. hmm...