What Is, Isn't

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceieve."-C.W. Leadbeater

The is of artistic identification, according to Danto, is a privilege to understand. As mentioned in class today, experience is an integral part of acquiring and maintaining the ability to understand (and therefore define) art. This idea also traces back to symbolism. Without experience beyond scribbles, an individual cannot see the picture in this post as anything but scribbles. However, a viewer who has been through emotional turmoil may see it as a representation of the confusion, anger, or sadness they once experienced or as a a cathartic process geared toward personal progression and development beyond a situation or emotion. To an extent, this view is highly subjective, suggesting that a work of art could mean almost anything to anyone depending on their past experience. With deeper consideration, however, I wonder if the above quote can be applied. Does every piece of art have the ability to elicit many perceptions based on the viewer? Can art encompass multiple qualities, some of which can only be seen by the "educated", "experienced" or perceptually aware? Is the is of artistic identification a set point? Or is it what it is to who is experiencing it?