Lectura, Locura

I was reading about the Chaos Theory and I was wondering how it could translate to the response of an audience to a painting. The Chaos theory states that there are things in nature like Eclipses that are relatively predictable and for those mathematical equations can be developed relatively easily. These are what much of science was based on. The conditions of external forces are easily controlled or of little consequence to the outcome. These are ideal circumstances. But for things like cloud formations, earthquakes, and wind tunnels in city's with cars and people and temperatures maintaining inconsistent speeds and heat and unpredictable gusts and obstacles, the outcomes are less predictable. To Chaos theorists, this just means that ordinary systems are more complex than the ones that scientists had originally focused on. So, part of nature can be defined by linear equations, which just means they have an answer, a clear and definite answer, the hollywood ending to a movie, the kiss, the cure, the moral justification, the "it was all a dream?" of science. The Chaos theory equations result in indefinite answers or what is called fractal geometry. The answers are constantly changing partly because the parts are always changing. They produce endless approximations of a fluctuating scale which produces a sort of answer.
I'm sure that the Chaos theories that are being employed are much more complex than anything I've written so it's unfair for me to try to draw from it's characteristics something about a painting but it's worth a try.
Is the response to a painting predictable? Would painting response be part of the first group of science or the second? I hope it's the second. I'd like to think that the responses are fractal, multiplying themselves from negative infinity to the east west north and south nonlinear geometry of our minds. I suppose it depends on the painting and the viewers personal history. Perhaps on the mood they're in, the other things they've seen, the type of work they may expect from you, their relationship to painting, the temperature of the room, how long they've been looking at damn paintings. I went throught the Ufizzi gallery in Rome in about 40 minutes. I couldn't look at another Virgin Mary or St. Thomas again for weeks after. I'm more interested in how to produce that fractal geometry response in people than list all of the variables that could make a person like or dislike a painting.
It's important for me to make a distinction here that... well I'm sure it will prove to be less of a distinction and more of a confusion as to what the heck I'm getting at. I'm not talking about Quality, which by the way derives from the duality of good and bad. I'm talking about that fractal geometrical response. I think that there's a break to be made and it's a fine line. For the painting to have this desired reaction, that cataclysmic event that begins those synapses, the painting must have some sort of conceptual base. Or maybe I've just put my foot in my mouth. The Chaos theory itself shows that out of order comes chaos and out of chaos a similiar pattern of order emerges. So perhaps that single sunflower of Egon Schiele, or Van Gogh, Klimt, can have the impetus for this fractal reaction. They could have that reaction but only because Schiele's flower is alone and dying, Van Gogh's is full of life, around others, and Klimts is masked in a facade of other flowers and decorative...ahh decorations, and something can be drawn away from them in comparison to their lives and their paintings. I was hoping that a pattern would emerge if I just kept rambling, but I suppose I'm being pretty linear, so I'd have a long way to go before anything emerged.