I think here you are wrong. : D

dedulya37, why? I sometimes one party explicitly compilation errors and misprints dumped on the forum ... : D

'Correct' is not you, and gans 'a, in my opinion.

No, and I ... Sometimes ... Who in the school, apparently, Russian for "excellent" knew ...

Well, where ART-lover gone to! There's one conversation that our philosophical pretensions only he can with feeling, with properly, and slowly spread out on shelves!

See how interesting it turns out, only in terms of art-illiterate. But the freedom of art illiterate thought no one has canceled:).

What is the relationship of mind and feelings in the perception of works of art? Gans rightly speaks of harmony, of a reasonable proportion. But how over time this ratio has changed, and changed it? (During the question for the end of the day:), in a fresh mind is not coming).

Classical art - all well-known and simple plot, ie even implying an explanation. That is an appeal to the mind exists, but, if I may say so, the subconscious.

Later - an appeal to the sense, as an explanation, if not harm, in any case, is not required.

Socialist realism - an appeal not know what. For photographic memory or something.

Modern art in the first place drawn to the mind, a sense may or may not arise depending on how the mind wants.

From my confused calculations it turns out that over time the ratio of the mind /feeling in the birth of art was not constant, varied, and with large amplitude. Who thinks that?

Allena, on what basis do you claim? : confused:: confused:

gutted Hirst's cows in the majority raise only emotions.
that many can recall the names of these works? want to think that the author had in mind? his work, excuse, or "insert" or "not inserted". and that its effects are no different from works by Aivazovsky

Yaya, I am no exception:). Well, I do not believe these freaks formalin works of art, IMHO. Nothing I do not see them - neither reason nor the senses (except for certain), no idea.

If, however, aside from all normal human feelings, it's "work" requires an explanation, ie appeal to reason, then, maybe there a sense of understanding ...

Vladimir, tell me, please, the meaning of formalin "works" Hirst. What does "physical impossibility of death in the minds of living"?

Hurst and Aivazovsky - I liked the combination ... I think, "sweet couple" ...
Aivazovsky If someone "puts", it really Hirst God himself told ...: D: D: D

Allena,
"physical impossibility of death in the minds of living" means that neither you nor I nor anyone everything else is (among the living) will never be able to understand fully what is death, what and who we become, when ever stop to breathe and our bodies rot. we can never imagine what for us, living today, will result in the end of our earthly existence (even when this death in front of our nose, like this dead shark). I think this is not such a cunning plan to make it very difficult "scanned" and feelings, and brains

Someone tell the Herstu.Dumayu, he did not suspect a thing.:)