I have been thinking that art often uses sensations in a sort of metaphorical way. ie– something looks polished and expensive, and this represents both the item, the subject matter, and the audience for which it’s made. Or, an industrial drone texture sounds rough– and this servers as a metaphor for modern life being rough, for the urban aesthetic having lots of abrasive qualities, for life itself in the city being abrasive at times. To me, there’s no guarantee that art actually creates the visceral effect that it implies. Rather, it suggests an effect, to the senses, and the viewer’s mind interprets this suggestion in various ways.
Perhaps, one might suggest that the degree to which art is successful depends on how evocative it is of the values and ideas wrapped up in it. There are some, though, who would say that art that is too visceral “sells out”, or is cheap.
All of this is, of course, open to discussion.