On Nietzsche's and Tolstoy's ability to compose a theory

After reading both Nietzsche and Tolstoy, I have come to the conclusion that the “collapse of principium individuationis” (p.164) and the infection of art could be argued to be either one and the same or completely different, where the flaws in each one of these elements are exposed. Bean counter that I am, I have chosen to nitpick details and argue that these concepts are completely different.
When Nietzsche discusses the principle of individuation in Ross’s anthology, he uses the words of Schopenhauer in Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, speaking of the “man wrapped in the veil of maya” (p. 164). He references a section (I, p. 416) that states that “in the midst of a world of torments the individual human being sits quietly, supported by and trusting in the principium individuationis…” I interpret this section as referring to the one absolute truth that Nietzsche searches for in all of his early writings; the person in the storm mentioned before this quote believes in the social psychology concept of a just world, and in this just world, he or she will be protected because he or she is somehow deserving of this, most often because of a belief in him or herself as a “good person;” and bad things do not happen to good people, right? Of course not (pardon my sarcasm).
Sparknotes tells me that this belief (in P. I.) includes boundaries between men (more specifically between the order of Apollonian and Dionysian realms), which is where this concept begins travelling in the complete opposite direction of Tolstoy’s “infection” of emotion through the medium of art. Tolstoy even goes so far as to say that art that does not accomplish this does not qualify as art. However, we discussed in class the many circumstances in which this cannot happen; how are we as viewers of art to know what the artist truly meant to communicate when he or she created the work? What if he or she, like Warhol, was probably lying when questioned about the meaning of the art? This limits true art to a few pieces where the meaning is either very clear, or when the viewer, by chance alone, happens to feel the same emotion or gather the same idea that the artist experienced while creating the piece. Since it is not an all-encompassing theory, and actually only works for a select few situations, it loses most of its credibility in my eyes. The principle of individuation actually makes sense, making it an acceptable theory. One solid argument and essentially, one non-argument, cannot be discussing the same thing.