Audience Theory

 I recently read a piece of text from an essay by Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, entitled "What is Art?"

 The essay concerned numerous, highly relevant points to the development and understanding of an audience, or rather, a notion of an audience and what viewers might think. It is useful, i believe, to compare it to many contemporary opinions and works, aligned with their receptions from the public.

 Tolstoy makes the argument that:

"Every work of art causes the receiver to enter a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression."

 This extract is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, I agree that as a member of the audience, if you "get" and artwork then you feel much closer to the maker and anyone who has shared this emotion of attaining the importance or aim behind it. 

 Yet, as we know in a modern art world, the art is not always made to be "comprehended" or "appreciated" for beauty or aesthetic aspects. 

The author goes as far as to say that art must contain a christian set of morals and follow a code of beauty, relevant to the time (i suppose highly Russian Orthodox 1890s brand of Christianity) to be considered "Good Art" and all that that counters this mind-set is certainly "Bad" or "False" art.

 Such a dated view cannot be applied to an audience in a contemporary, creative world, due to the fact that belief systems, tolerances nd boundaries/morals have simply changed.

 It is interesting to see, therefore, how dated a view this is. I would be quite intrigued to compare this to a modern text or essay on viewer theory, to see how much substance it holds.

 I mean take Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" for example. Tolstoy would have been horrified to see this put in an art gallery, let alone, conceived....as would many of the viewers in his time. 

Indeed, on a side note, what is so interesting about this text is that he always uses the male as the spectator. This would have been a time when women would have been consigned to the home, too poor , as most families with those circumstances, to get out to art galleries, and not welcome perhaps.

So it is also noteworthy to make the distinction of the wide spectrum of the modern audience, suiting all genders, as well as religions. Everyone has so many different tastes that it is not up to the artist to convey beauty necessarily, but what is reflective of their own life and practice, which, coincidentally, may reveal itself to be beautiful, to some members of an audience.