TA's Q: How does artistic and creative quality figure in to Tolstoy's definition of art as a means to unite people and their emotions?

I think artistic and creative quality plays a major role in Tolstoy's definition of art, especially when you begin to measure the degrees and ramifications for, "infectiousness."  However, I agree with Nicole's earlier comment, that due to human empathy, perhaps even a touching story or tragedy reported in a newspaper could be considered art, providing the reader experiences the appropriate emotion invoked by the piece.

However, I think Tolstoy would say that there remains a difference.  In most newspapers, the writing is informative, or critical.  I would say that the journalist or reporter does not feel the raw emotion of say, a decorated war hero, that the soldier himself/herself would feel if they related the story directly to the reader.  While an empathetic reader may experience the emotions experienced by the source of the story itself, I feel as if the middle man, (the reporter), would break the bond of consciousness that Tolstoy describes as a facet of truly great art.  There is no doubt that perhaps the reporter, the source of the story, and the reader all experience similar emotions, however, I would say that by Tolstoy's definition of art at least, it would not be true art.

"So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance" (Tolstoy, 237).