So this is a response to Aurora's very interesting question, "what if art catches our interest by arousing a childhood impression or emotion, but its main purpose is to convey a hidden message or metaphor? is it still art, or does it fall into a different category? or is it just sneaky art?"

Well art is supposed to catch our interest, that is part of the purpose of it, regardless of the emotions evoked by the work itself. But by catching the viewer and arousing some kind of childhood emotion, it has brought the viewer in so that they may examine the work more closely. When an emotion from childhood is evoked in the viewer, it makes that artwork so much more powerful to that individual, even though it may be completely different from what someone else experiences. Also, if the purpose of a work of art is to bring out this hidden meaning or metaphor, it can convey it while simultaneously evoking that emotion in the viewer, becuase that is its original purpose. So it should still be considered art, even though it has taken on a number of meanings, because art should not be solely limited to doing one thing. Just like, for example, going to a restaurant and ordering a meal, and when you eat it, it makes you think of a moment in your childhood or a person that you knew when you were younger. The food still satisfies its original purpose of sustainance, but it has also done more by evoking a memory, and it is still considered food.

So my question now is how many new meanigns can art take on before it is turned into, or over-analyzed, into something that is no longer art?