> anything that requires effort and "cultivation" to understand is not art.
Tolstoy said that? Where? His work require a bit of effort and cultivation ... so does an incredible amount of art. Emotional communication does not at all exclude effort or cultivation; in fact, you can 'hear' a lot more if you sharpen your perception.
Cultivation seems hard to distinguish from any learning. Who is uncultivated, a four year old? Is art only what a four year old understands? That greatly limits what it can communicate to people who have become cultivated beyond that.
My interpretation of what he intended more closely aligns with the word "pretentious". Artistic contributions that are veiled behind complexity and technique, or require explanation and close examination, and exposure. I can't speak to the native Russian texts, but the English translations of his work, I would surmise, could be understood by anyone. In the preface to the copy of What is Art? that I read, it was reported that Tolstoy struggled with the topic for some time, and that he struggled to adhere to the principals he laid that define art. But again, I'm butchering it, and suggest you read it for yourself.
The peasant work song is art, Wagner's leitmotifs are pretentious.
Tolstoy said that? Where? His work require a bit of effort and cultivation ... so does an incredible amount of art. Emotional communication does not at all exclude effort or cultivation; in fact, you can 'hear' a lot more if you sharpen your perception.
Cultivation seems hard to distinguish from any learning. Who is uncultivated, a four year old? Is art only what a four year old understands? That greatly limits what it can communicate to people who have become cultivated beyond that.