Apollinian vs. Dionysian

In the preface it discusses that the development of the theories of the aesthetic in Part Two concentrates on aesthetic pleasure, which it describes as general way of considering the experience of beauty. I think that this is going to be interesting considering what I consider to be the definition of aesthetics. When first thinking of the word aesthetics, I think of the common phrase "That is very aesthetically pleasing to me." I think that it will be interesting how they apply aesthetics to something tragic, terrible, or even horrific as they say in the preface.

Freidrich Nietzsche first thought of the Greek tragedy and how the experience arouses certain emotions. He talks about two types of categories of art that in turn, create two different aesthetic experiences. The first style, Apollinian, is a structured art that creates beauty of form. Things such as paintings and sculptures would be considered Apollinian because they display everyday things or scenes into something that the viewer can grasp and understand by just looking at it. The other category is Dionysian which is an art of participation where the viewer loses a sense of identity while experiencing it. This sort of art shows the brutal parts of life and tragedy. Nietzsche says that Greek tradgedy is capable of showing the pain and unfair emotions that are often associated with life. Dionysian art can often include dance or music that one loses themselves in the experience.

Questions:
1. In the two categories that Nietzsche describes, are the feelings that the piece evokes the only thing that qualifies it as a certain category?
2. What are some modern examples of the two categories?