How does one empathize with an inanimate object?  Is it when an art piece provokes a feeling in a viewer? Or does a viewer empathize with an artist through a work of art? Does a work of art have to have conceptual meaning to it in order for a viewer to have empathy towards it?  Seeing is the basis of being able to appreciate a work of art, and understanding its meaning is secondary.  

  I was more able to relate to the article written by Mundt.  It is a nice overview of the other authors works. I agree with Kant in his writings,"...in pure judgement of the pleasure created by the object has to do with form". Being a artist my self coming from a purely aesthetic back ground I was intrigued by Kant's theories.  "....judgement of taste can only refer to form."  I can relate to this statement because initially I am visually attracted to a work of art. I have seen many ugly poorly executed "conceptual" works of art that I have no care to view. I feel that no matter how much content a piece of crappy art has in the end it is still a crappy piece of art. Throughout my education of art I have come to really heavily on proportions, placement and colors in works of art in order to respect and appreciate art. Which leads me to a quote from Herbert, "...proportions and relations on which rest the power of a work of art".  I don't believe that a work of art has to have content.  It is good to have a aesthetically pleasing work of art that also has a message involved, but a form doe's not need content to be appreciated.  For me content in a work of art has to be paired with aesthetics in order for me to appreciate it. Being able to see is the foundation of  appreciating a "visual" work of art. Right? haha