Previous Experience and Bias

In class on Wednesday Professor Johnson made the distinction between previous experience and bias, or, at least made the point that we oughtn't conflate the two. I think delving into this distinction could prove interesting in our discussion of bias in art criticism.

Professor Johnson seems correct in saying that conflating previous experience with bias is not appropriate. If we conflate previous experience with bias then removing bias from art viewing becomes problematic if not impossible. The simple fact that we problematize art criticism by conflating the two is not enough for us to prove that they oughtn't be conflated. We do, I think, have better reason to separate the two than that. In viewing art one must comprehend not only the form, but also the content. (I recognize this is a contentious claim, but it seems to me to be the case), and one cannot possibly understand that content if one were to divorce oneself from their experience entirely. One could not be expected to appraise the content of the Odyssey, without a sense of what "home" means. We can notice and overcome biases that we have towards art. For example, Person X prefers sad music. This person listens to an album that is largely upbeat. In order to fairly appraise the album, this person must realize and separate themselves from their preference for sad music, and focus on the music without that bias.

Thus, to appreciate art without bias would involved cognitively overcoming their predispositions to appreciate quality A over  quality B in a given art object, and would not include divorcing themselves from previous experience, as these experiences are necessary to the criticism and appreciation of the art object.

Ought we to take the content into account when appraising art, as I contend here?