A stack of theses on the market confusion
 

(in connection with the theme misunderstanding Market)

A work of art - a thing in itself, and if anyone thinks that he understands what a work of art, it is simply not aware of their misunderstanding.
The artist understands his work no more than a spectator.
The fact that a work of art is clear - is not art. Understanding available ideographic rather than artistic component.

You can not separate the mimetic, expressive and symbolic incarnation of art.

Art History should be rewritten as a history of misunderstanding of art, and this history would be more adequate to its object.

Art market does not exist.
Under this title, operating a number of different commodity markets with their specific utility value, none of which is not art, although the goods in these markets and denominated as a work of art.
The only common characteristic of the subjects of the art market "is that these items are used in determining the narratives of art.

Try to assign a work of art is not an act of delayed understanding, but there is an existential act of changing the modus vivendi (way of living) the purchaser, removes the dilemma "to have or be."
The essence and implications of this act are subjective, and transcendent, so it can not be regarded as something utilitarian, like the special use value on the art market.
Acquisition of art objects for the sake of their utility or other perceivable qualities are ignoring the specificity of art objects, ie use them for other purposes.

What does "work of art - a thing in itself"? Why can not "understand" a work of art? How else do you propose to comprehend a work of art. We grasp it by means of thinking (Other notable way I do not know). And "understanding" - is a component of thinking (one of its constituent processes). "Understanding the works of art" must be regarded as process, and then everything will fall into place. If you perceive the content of works of art as a spiritual phenomena, then you hereby fully comprehended it. This is the idea of his understanding.

A brilliant passage, however, like almost everything in art-lover.

This, if not mediated by the definition of art, then one of his explanations. In other words, can not believe the algebra of poetry. Art can not exist without the aesthetic content, and aesthetic effect of the product is perceived by us directly through the sense of avoiding speculative logic.

Once again (for those who do not understand ):( "a prime)
The act of assigning somehow removes the question "have or to be"?
The effects of the act of the estate "is not" use value "?
Acquisition for understandable quality=misuse?
Have I neponyala? (Do I understand that not understood?) (Dissenting because it is not clear)
Can the same thing (but without the pearl buttons)?

Added after 6 minutes
"The aesthetic effect is very subtle and unexplained concept (" all time "). which can not be considered outside the specific location, time, moral and aesthetic priorities. (IMHO, is if "without pearlies")

'Aesthetic effect "- the notion of a higher degree" deeply personal "..

That's the nevydelimy sign of art, which makes a work of art.

Do not mind and heart.

"Feelings" that is?

"Some" reaction is not "some" (izvinitezavyrazhenespozvoleniyaskazat) art is primitive at the level of sensations (sometimes very strong) ...

I remembered (HH, I think it belongs): "Uymi vomiting ... it is very expensive ..

Thing in itself - it is such a nut, which if strong hammer, it breaks down the hammer.

Learned the art of using mind=reduce it to the thinking processes. It is conceptually, but this focus is not without cheating.
The very "understanding" in a philosophical environment remains an issue debated and murky misunderstanding. What is not understood by all. And there are different traditions of interpretation of the nature of the concept. However, the forum would collapse under the weight of any initiative to correct deployment of the concept of the concept. And these initiatives are punishable by misunderstandings, disrespect and unread.
"Understanding art as a process" - Ok, with emphasis on non finito. "Everything will fall into place, somewhere in the infinity, where the knot tied parallel lines.

Well, I do not know how to comprehend a work of art. With reverence I look at those who know: I think that they and God can fully understand - as a spiritual phenomenon. " :)

Yes !:)
No. :(

Not long ago, leaf through the memories of a good mathematics of one of his students. Mathematics - almost as dense topic, like art, and maybe This quote is by analogy will help deepen and expand our lack of understanding:

"My uncivilized approach to books, to a certain extent excusable for a man" caught up in the mountains, was known to Julius Alexandrovitch and call on his part ironic remarks. My desire to "put everything into the shot," all "to clarify "do very familiar and concrete, even in cases where the author wants to keep something between the lines or behind the scenes, often hampered by the pronounced in the playful form consideration Danilov:" Hera, do not overstep the thin line between erotica and pornography. Even the best intentions. "According to my youth I was beyond the idea that culture is largely rests on" the structure of default "that there are" inconceivably subtle "items, which penetrate all the pores of the scientific (and apparently any other) creativity, which is not to talk openly in public, pending write. they are reported confidentially tete-a-tete, by word of mouth, and only one who "matured" to a certain level, who can himself ask the question and take evasive did not clarify, for look outside, "only the merits" reply ".

(Georgy Guria. "Julius A. Danilov, as I knew him")

My impression is that the ART-LOVER or enroll or enroll their conclusions.

and yet interestingly, after a man old enough and knew what distinctive qualities it takes?