# IV explained — What Is Art? > Chapter companion for What Is Art? by Leo Tolstoy. ## What happens Tolstoy argues that existing aesthetic definitions of art, based on beauty and pleasure, are circular and fail to provide a true definition. He contends that such definitions merely justify the art favored by a particular social class, and that a proper understanding of art must consider its causes and effects, not just the pleasure it provides. ## Themes in this chapter ### Critique of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Tolstoy systematically dismantles existing aesthetic theories that define art by beauty or pleasure, arguing they are circular and self-serving. ### Perversion of Art by Professionalism and Gain He criticizes how art is defined to justify the productions that please a certain class, rather than seeking a true, universal definition. ## Character check-ins ### Leo Tolstoy Author and primary voice critiquing aesthetic definitions of art. ### Francis Hutcheson Mentioned as one who discussed taste in relation to beauty. ### Voltaire Mentioned as one who discussed taste in relation to beauty. ### William Shakespeare Cited as part of the art canon, specifically Romeo and Juliet. ### Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Cited as part of the art canon, specifically Wilhelm Meister. ## Key lines > To the question, What is this art, to which is offered up the labour of millions, the very lives of men, and even morality itself? we have extracted replies from the existing aesthetics, which all amount to this: that the aim of art is beauty, that beauty is recognised by the enjoyment it gives, and that artistic enjoyment is a good and important thing, because it is enjoyment. When asked what art is—given its enormous cost in labor, lives, and morality—aesthetics answers only that art aims at beauty, recognized by pleasure, and that such pleasure is good simply because it is pleasure. _Tolstoy summarizes the circular reasoning of aesthetic definitions._ > All attempts to define absolute beauty in itself—whether as an imitation of nature, or as suitability to its object, or as a correspondence of parts, or as symmetry, or as harmony, or as unity in variety, etc.—either define nothing at all, or define only some traits of some artistic productions, and are far from including all that everybody has always held, and still holds, to be art. Every effort to define beauty objectively—as imitation, suitability, symmetry, harmony, or unity—either fails to define anything or only covers a few works, missing much of what is universally considered art. _Tolstoy argues that objective definitions of beauty are inadequate._ ## Links - HTML: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_art_se/chapters/iv - Book: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_art_se - All chapters: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/what_is_art_se/chapters