Why did John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy criticize art separated from morality?

John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy both championed a moralistic view of art, arguing that its primary function should be to serve as a vehicle for moral and social improvement rather than existing as an end in itself.12

For John Ruskin, art was a "noble and expressive language" meant to convey truth and spiritual significance. He believed that art should reflect a morally instructive natural theology, where the artist acts as a witness to divine presence in the world. Ruskin criticized art that focused solely on sensual or hedonic qualities—often associated with the "art-for-art’s-sake" movement—because he viewed such works as disconnected from the social and spiritual responsibilities of the creator.34

Leo Tolstoy similarly condemned art that he felt emphasized class distinctions or served only "upper-class" tastes, viewing it as "false art" that hindered human fellowship. Influenced by his interpretation of early Christianity, Tolstoy insisted that true art must foster the fellowship of all humans. He believed that any art failing to promote these moral tenets was not only useless but potentially harmful to society.1

Both thinkers viewed art as a powerful tool for shaping human character and society, and they were deeply suspicious of any aesthetic practice that prioritized form over ethical substance.154