Yet I really don't have an emotional connection with art (there are exceptions, but this is rare). I hold a few things I've made dear to me but would sell them in an instant. I don't think this is in any way necessary. Whatever you feel - or don't - is just how you see it.
But I like art, overall, especially surrealism, fantasy, and abstract work. I think they are neat to look at when done well. I'm sometimes in awe of well-done landscapes, portraits, still life paintings, and things depicting current events and situations. I don't really enjoy these, though, since I find such images boring after a while. In fact, I'm the type of artist that would make something up if someone insists on "getting" my art or asks me to explain a few things. Or refuse to explain altogether. I know folks expect this stuff, so I'm prepared to jump into that role if it ever becomes actually necessary, even though I know it would be a farce.
It is OK not to have emotion. It is OK to like art because you find the image interesting to look at. Because you find it neat, pretty, absurd, or whatever. So long as it captures your attention, that's enough. Regardless of what an article says.
All that said, though, if you want an emotional connection, I suggest learning about art. See a lot of examples, read up on what artists have written about their own work or the reactions of critics and regular folks that saw the work. Look up "classic" popular artists, look up not-so-popular artists.
Expand into other fields. Maybe visual art isn't what you connect to- maybe you find your connection with music or poetry. Maybe you find you are a sucker for good animation (old Disney films have watercolor backgrounds and Dali did some work with Disney: Newer animations are marvels of digital animation at times). Once you have a feel for your preferences, explore how you think and feel when you look/listen/read what you like.
Whatever that last one is - the things you think and feel, however it changes - is your emotional reaction.