Tolstoy claimed that art is that by which a person communicates his or her emotions (of a certain type) to a wide audience, such that they also have those emotions. Is this plausible?

Any theory that attempts to define art seeks to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions that are ever-present in what is known as art. For Tolstoy these conditions were that a piece of art must be borne of a feeling or emotion experienced by the artist, and in turn convey this emotion to the audience: "Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on …

…'art' is not a physical, existential, inanimate object to which we can attach a stagnant definition, but is in fact a metaphysical phenomenon, that is constantly evolving and outgrowing any labels or definitions which are assigned to it. The relevant question now then is not 'What is Art', but is more along the lines of what value does it have in society if that is what grants it its existence and its status as 'art'.