Illness

your questions relate to the emotional aspect of art relative to the last two arguments presented my comments are in agreement with your assement of those arguments. That being they are valueless in understanding art.

The second aspect is applying Nietzsche's concept to art. in that the dionysian for art is the emotional response ie the meaning if there is no emotional response then its just a picture, think the diffrence between a travel guide to yellowstone and a book of Adams pictures. For art to be art it most be more then a meaning of a something it most evoke a more intimate relationship with the observe thus under Nietzsche's concept we can assume as it realtes to art the Dionysian is that wmotional response

What am I? can you clarify the question

I dont disagree with either the cogs or the emo's but to art neither argument matters. They are arguments that describe how we relate to art how I feel or why I see/hear somthing a certain way but it tells us nothing about art itself. So they dont mean anything to the topic.