In the case of art the work is aesthetically sentimental partly because its content is ethically sentimental. The artist can be considered sentimental if the piece says something about the artist's self-indulgence, hypocrisy, misrepresentation, and shallowness. If an artwork can cause the audience to respond in a predictable sentimental way, the formal qualities of artwork are intrinsic; they are harder to see because this kind of sentimentality requires ethical analysis.
Sentimentalism questions an appropriate response, which indicates that something is wrong with the feelings involved and that the emotions are too easily stirred. The reason why sentimentality is viewed badly is our poor opinion of our softer emotions in general. Sentimentality is treated as an aesthetic moral and psychological defect. This is a philosophical procedure within the standard view of the need to preserve rational principles and moral principles as universally desirable qualities. It is obvious that philosophy sides with the rational, the deep, the complex and the factual. A philosopher like Savile therefore cannot praise the irrational, simple, and passive, which is sentimental art. Sentiments make no demands, nor does it require struggle. It involves only a narrow range of feelings, which arouse no thought or feeling towards reality; both contribute to and are supported by a failure of the imagination. Sentimentality is keyed to our emotions and response, leaving us with a feeling of being too preoccupied with ourselves. The artwork that is worthy of praise are ones that open us to a new experience, and cause us to look into new perspectives of the ambiguous. They involve difficulty, effort, causing us to ask questions about the world around us; this turns our attention away from ourselves towards others.
It is easy to respond negatively towards a sentimental piece of art because it leaves the viewer feeling vulnerable, deceived, compliant and manipulated.
