How does previous knowledge of the artist affect the aesthetics of a piece if aesthetics are based on emotional response?

Having information of an artist before looking at one of their pieces, does it hinder or help your aesthetic response? I didn't see the relation between aesthetics and knowledge of the artist until my last post. Before then I saw no relation; if a piece causes an emotional reaction from you or you find its beauty to be like nothing you've ever seen before, what does it matter who the artist is? If you simply go off of what you see, it doesn't make a difference who the artist is, however, knowing who the artist is, or simple facts about the artist, do change your reaction to the piece. Like with Dutton's example in his essay Artistic Crimes about van Meegeren's forgery of Vemeer Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus. Once it was known that the painting was not by Vemeer, the esteem that was placed on it was instantly taken away by the fact that the forger was a lesser known artist. Or was it just the financial value placed on the painting that was taken away? If you look at it from another angle, like in my previous post, if you are looking at a painting of, say a butterfly, until you find out who the artist is or something about them. Based on your knowledge of the artist, your opinion of the painting will change. If the person who painted it is someone famous, your reaction will be different than one you might have if you know the artist to be autistic or impaired in some way. An aesthetic response is not solely based on the beauty of a piece, it is also emotional, and those emotions can be changed with the knowledge, or lack of, you have of the piece. This is why previous knowledge of the artist can affect the emotions of your aesthetic response.

What does a piece of art have to have in order for the audience to have an aesthetic reaction to it and how does that differ in the case of a forgery?

The word aesthetic is defined as concerning beauty, the appreciation of beauty, and able to evoke emotion, so in theory a piece of art must have these criteria to have an aesthetic effect on its audience. So then what about a forgery? If it has meets all of these criteria, does it have an aesthetic effect on the audience? I would say the answer is yes, however, the aesthetic effect of a forgery is very different from that of an original. Aesthetic judgement is often intellectual and interpretive in some small way or another, it isn't all about the beauty of an art piece. Often times meaning and symbols are interlaced into the piece by the viewer, becoming a part of how the piece is judged. Many say that will and desire are not factors in judging aesthetically, yet preference and choice seem to be important to the process. 

When comparing an original to a forgery, if you only look at what is within the four corners of the canvas, then you could assert that a forgery is aesthetically comparable to the original. However, the emotional reaction you have to the original, say the Mona Lisa in Louvre, would be very different from the experience of seeing a copy of it in a book. Often times the 'intellect' part of aesthetics incorporates the artist in part of the judgment, in that your reaction to a painting can be changed simply by knowing whom, or information about the artist of the painting. If you were to look at a painting of a butterfly, for example, and you were told that it was painted by a severely autistic person, your reaction to it would be very different than that of if you were told that the painting was done by the president or a child in a concentration camp or even Monet. In this respect, it is clear that the original is significantly different from the forgery. The forgery lacks the 'moment of genius' that is found in the original. That being said is why a forgery cannot be called aesthetically the same as an original on an emotional or even intellectual level.