Yes, but that is only the dyonisian aspect of the painting (the cat) . . . but I agree, this aspect which triggers an emotional response is linked into one's own experience . . . NEVERTHELESS, if before you saw the painting you felt emotionally happy, then the painting itself was the trigger of your feeling emotionally sad. Granted, why this was tirggered was based on your own experience, but if it weren't for your ability to reason/recognize/interpret/empircally-percieve the painting, you wouldn't have felt sad . . . OR RATHER, not the sadness that is directly linked to your experience (of the cat). Ergo, the painting itself has the ability to trigger an emotional response . . . just like your empirical-experiences (even if it is just looking at a painting, remembering a cat from the past, then feeling the emotion).

Furthermore, what about the apollian aspect of art work? The colors, the strokes? Is it not true that certain tones have pre-destined emotional attributes. Why does blue evoke a sense of sadness while red evokes a sense of anger? If one has had no negative experience with a cat, and sees a painting of a blue cat with a droopy face, would said individual not feel a sense of sadness? Is this not then a direct case of the physiological aspect of a human?

So . . . emotions: what are they really?