It's sometimes helpful to nail one's colours to the mast. My interest in this thread is to try to balance " As you can witness in this forum, the prevailing notion about art is that it is all about provoking emotions. " with what I can suggest of objective insight into how this prevailing Romantic feeling is historical and not everlastingly true of the nature of art. While taking cognisance of the fallacy of periodisation.I've seen many historical accounts of why Romanticism came to be. One of them is that the "romantic spirit" was a reaction to industrialization, science and the whole Enlightenment project, from the war trenches of bourgeois idealism. That reaction is still going on today, as the "romantic spirit" prevails in most of our culture. As you can witness in this forum, the prevailing notion about art is that it is all about provoking emotions. Leaving aside if we agree or not, let's first acknowledge that there are other more rational notions of aesthetics and its advocates have held a long dispute against the romantics and their aesthetics of the ineffable.
Regarding periodisation, the genesis of Romanticism is older than what we agree are the attitudinal bastions of the industrialisation process. Chretien de Troyes in the twelfth century is recorded as the portrayer of independent-minded proponents of chivalry who engaged in independent quests for truth and goodness. The independence of the individual is Romantic. I'm on the side of individuality and personal feelings and that is why I support tertiary education for all so that individuals are aware of the hard work and dangers that are the inevitable companions in the quest for freedom from authoritarian rule. The Romantic spirit in art as in work and industry is not well served by ignorance of its historical base.