Neitzsche and Tolstoy

Philosophy has never been my strong suit--I'm pretty easily confused by its density. I really cannot tell if it is that aspect of my thinking or something else, but I seriously do not see how Neitzsche and Tolstoy could possibly be talking about the same thing other than the umbrella topic "art theory".

Neitzsche discusses in his writing dichotomous nature, the Apollonian and Dionysian perspective on things. In the former's world, there is fantastic order, and in the latter's, the chaos of reality. Most importantly, as I am lead to understand it, the Apollonian world is self-illusion of rationality via religion, which is classified as an overall order or truth that we can get to (reminiscent of Plato?) that is conceptualized with the notion that there is a higher power. In contrast to this Apollonian world and the art in it, Neitzsche tells us that we can get certain things from Dionysian art based in this relatively real world that we could not from the purity of Apollonian.
So Neitzsche is talking about types of art and what we can do with it.

Tolstoy, on the other hand (or maybe I should say foot because they are relatively unrelated), writes of contagion--that art is the connection between two people forged by some medium of communication. Pure and simple, that is what he says. So Tolstoy is talking about what makes art "art" and what it can do.

I suppose from the perspective that both Philosophers discuss what art can do or what we can get from it, they debate the same topic, but honestly, that's the only true similarity I see with a superficial knowledge.