[Тютчев]

Originally Posted by Art-lover

Learned the art of using mind = reduce it to the thinking processes. It is conceptually, but this focus is not without cheating.

And what, actually, deception? If you believe that "learned the art of using mind=reduce it to the thinking processes, then please explain," with "any other processes, if we exclude" thinking ", we can comprehend the art? What are these processes, please. Very interesting ...

Originally Posted by Art-lover

very "understanding" in a philosophical environment remains an issue debated and murky confusion. What is not understood by all. And there are different traditions of interpretation of the nature of the concept. However, the forum will collapse under the burden of any initiative to correct deployment of the concept of the concept. And similar initiatives are punishable misunderstanding, disrespect and unread.

In the "philosophical environment" much-debated issue. The question of "understanding" is not the most complex and confusing one. Why scare people "with darkness of misunderstanding", the complexity of the issue and "collapse" forum? In fact, it is not so scary, but notions of "understanding" is spreading in the development of philosophy, psychology and linguistics. And since you are my first and main thesis was built using this concept, the clarification of this issue I can see a key and logical in this topic.
You claim that an understanding of art and perception of it by thinking (which, in essence, the same thing) is not possible or limited. I maintain that thinking - it is a fundamental process (ie, without comprehension impossible) to comprehend a work of art man. (Understanding - it forms a component of thinking and therefore can not be separated from him)

Originally Posted by Art-lover

"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.
 

Understand - this is a process. And nothing else it can not be. Process unconditionally. When you say that you "understand", it means that you are involved in a certain thinking process. A result of a process, not necessarily understood subject in its entirety.

Originally Posted by Art-lover

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

I am very apologetic, but how do you get that from? This nonsense I wrote. And there is nothing similar in meaning to what you have written is not asserted. I wrote this:

Originally Posted by Tjutchev

"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.

And it has another meaning.

Originally Posted by ranzher

... and the aesthetic effect of the work is perceived by us directly through the sense of avoiding the speculative logic of construction.

That's about it, please, more. It's very interesting to understand ...