Week 2 Q&A 02

"Is insincere art that communicates an emotion strongly better than art that is very sincere but communicates an emotion poorly?"

This is a question I raised during class on Friday. Tolstoy states that the more infectious (or strongly) the art instills the desired emotion into the reader, the better it is. However, if the message the artist is trying to convey is sincere, then that is also good. However, in the case, which is better? Our TA brought up an example of someone who is mentally incapable of understanding emotions. Let's say they create a beautiful painting about sadness without feeling such sadness. The painting is so infectious that everyone who sees it feels the same sadness. What's wrong with this scenario is the fact that it's not a real communication. Communication seems to imply that everyone is on the same page. I do not think this is a true communication, and therefore, art.
However, art that is truly sincere communicates its emotion poorly, then I do not think it succeeded. It failed because it would not communicate its message efficiently.
In my opinion, if the second piece of art is able to communicate its emotion at all to any extent, then it's better than the first piece of art. Because in my mind, the first piece of art is not a true communication since the artist did not understand it. I think it would go by a case by case basis, because not all scenarios are this extreme. There can be different levels of sincerity in art.