A stack of theses on the market confusion

[NATA NOVA]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

So what is faith?

I am spiritual (sacramental) level had in mind ... (Eto. probably influence a foreign language environment for you so affected) ..

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

And just as "relevant" and yet there is something similar to "criticism".

I do not know of.

Added after 35 seconds

Сообщение от NATA NOVA

I'm spiritual (sacramental) levels had in mind ...

So what exactly is a "spiritual faith"?

[Peter]

Igor Guriev, that such a belief is far-reaching issue, well, that he zadaetsya.Hotel you ask, what is a good critic? "I read Chegodaeva, Prokofiev, Tretyakov, Bohemian, Dmitrieva (very much), Michael Herman and others, but never realized what they need, yes, they give some interesting facts and comparisons, but their taste for certain product people can not impose particularly those who have no need vkusa.Zachem criticism?

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Samvel

You know, I accidentally caught somewhere for metka.chto even Mother Teresa, in his recent memoirs, wrote about his doubts in suschevstvovanii God.

Well, it's her personal business.

In my opinion, even any spider knows that God exists.

Added after 1 minutes

Сообщение от Peter

a taste for individual works can not impose on people, especially those who have no vkusa.Zachem needs critics?

The critic is not to impose a taste, but in order to share his views and experiences with art.

No more.

[Peter]

By Faith brings the whole logic of human existence, (not all). There is no tool that can measure this, including the amount of this in some cheloveke.Dlya Vera are intuitive, others logically obosnovannoe.No and that, and another refers to the intangible product consciousness cheloveka.Pomogaet whether Vera? One easy, others difficult suschestvovanie.Slozhny question.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

This verngo, but I'm talking about good critic type Grabar or Benoit, but not today, not able to link the two words (this applies to all critics of the "actual" art in general).

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Better not know.

Alexander Benois not a critic, and opposite criticism. It is difficult to remember the man from those who have written about art, more subjective in his judgments than he. And anyway, is it possible combination in one person of the critic and the artist? Critic and artist of a different attitude to art, and therefore attempts to combine these two types of activities will certainly lead to a conflict that would result in the suppression of one another.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Alexander Benois, not a critic, and opposite criticism. It is difficult to imagine a man who has written about art, more subjective in his judgments than he.

This is exactly what is required of the critic - a view based on a certain system of values.

Plus the ability to write.

Added after 2 minutes

Сообщение от Tjutchev

. And anyway, is it possible combination in one person of the critic and the artist?

Experience Grabar and Benoit just shows that not only possible but even desirable.

Although Puning and Tugendhold too bad writing, especially the first.

One of the best critics of the 20 th century - Gumilev, a poet himself.
Or Khodasevich and Tsvetaeva - also writers and poets.

Or roots Chukovsky.

And Tynyanov was also part-time writer and philologist.

[Art-lover]

I enrolled in a personal question from one of forumlyan, if I have personal reasons to advertise Brui. Reply to a private way I could not: for reasons unknown to me at the author's question put on a straitjacket and cut his communications channels. Therefore, answer here:
With this artist I was not personally acquainted, and his paintings are "alive" not seen, so that the other reason to write about him, besides the fact that it is interesting to fit into the subject under discussion, I do not. And as far as references to the artist used for his advertising, easy to be determined after full-time acquaintance with his work: if they are good - then it is advertising, if not - then antiadvertising <!--~ a ~-->.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Faith and understanding - it is red and sweet.
Red is not opposed to sweet.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

For example, I punctured a tire on a bicycle.
I believe that I can repair the bike, and I know how to do it.
Where is the opposition?

The relationship between faith and understanding of the complex than between "red" and "sweet". When we say that we understand how to fix a bicycle, in this discourse to "understand" tantamount to "know". But faith and knowledge is clearly correlated: if we know, we need not believe. And we believe in what they do not know.

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

It's not the" instability "of understanding (in life in general, all unstable, as we know, apart from faith in God, if it is strong), and that understanding is the thing dynamic.
Even their parents understand the child differently, and more interesting to understand this sense than incomplete understanding (and understanding of the definition can not be complete) reduced to just "misunderstanding."
Or, in your opinion, misunderstanding can be небанальным?

Great question!
Let's start with the fact that the identity of knowledge and understanding in your example with the bike is difficult to reconcile with the statement: "Understanding, by definition, can not be complete." If you know (know) how to fix the wheel, then your understanding is complete.

Hegel distinguished between "bad" and the true infinity. Similarly, we can speak of "bad" and "true" misunderstanding.
In the first case, lack of understanding could be filled by one or other end procedures (learning, thinking, knowledge). At the output we have the "banal" understanding, whether it has become (static) or becoming a (dynamic).
To deal with the second case, we turn to the relation between Cataphotic (yes) and apophatic (negative) theology. Last of the Orthodox tradition, is the highest, for comprehension of God through what he is not more adequate to its object, than what it is. Nature Deity prohibitively world, the Creator and the creature are incommensurable. And if we still strive to comprehend God - knowing that we can not comprehend - we find ourselves in a fundamentally irreversible misunderstanding.
But even in this area is possible some experience. This experience and expertise can be called a "true" misunderstanding: such a definition would be far better to express its essence than the phrase "experience of understanding." "True" misunderstanding is understanding "небанальное.

Читать дальше... 

I guess that it is through art for us may appear, it becomes "visible" parts of the infinitely complex pattern of relationships and connections that arise during the implementation experience of mankind "true" misunderstanding. Art can be a universal model medium capable of expressing vague "images" of that experience. But under what conditions?
In search of definitions of such art can go on the road Cataphatic: it gb free and open to the deep intuitions refleksiruyuschim (aspiring to identify its essence) ...
Is it possible for the apophatic way, leaving the requirement of reflection, but at the same time focusing on the negative definitions of art. It seems preferable to the second path (actually, this topic and came in line with this approach.)
Just as the conscious failure to conceiving of God does not diminish the desire of the soul to God and postulated the impossibility of understanding art and its artifacts can only strengthen the eros that brings one to the art of those who possess such a eros.
You can enjoy the arts and instinctively, without conscious awareness. Understand - this is a luxury, designed for those who want to afford it. For those who want ultimate luxury "negative" approach to the understanding of art - not castration, but very soon Viagra <!--~ a ~-->: work with the paradoxes inherent in this approach, makes it easier to break through to the merits of the case through the sticky swamps of banal narratives, filling the heads of participants artist. processes, and dedicated to the art texts. Alas, this approach is burdened by major shortcomings: assumed familiarity with the history and boltologiey contemporary art, a culture of thinking, development of intuition and the notorious eros ...

[SAH]

Сообщение от Art-lover

Alas, this approach burdened with large defects: assumes familiarity with the history and boltologiey contemporary art, a culture of thinking, development of intuition and the notorious eros ...

Oochen cool

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Art-lover

A faith and knowledge are clearly correlated: if we know that we need not believe. And we believe in what they do not know.

A typical logical error, very common.
I know that God is, and I believe in God.
"Believe" - it is something other than "know".
What God is, I always knew but now I believe in Him shall not immediately.
Believing in God - is trust God that is to love God, fear Him and to fulfill the commandments.
And know that God is possible without faith in Him: and the demons know and tremble.
The child knows and believes that his mother loves him. These are different things, different.
When a person believes, not knowing it's called "blind faith".
She nobody wants, trust me.
Belief in God does not mean that a person believes that God exists.
This is not faith, is blind faith, it does not need the Lord.

Added after 4 minutes

Сообщение от Art-lover

You can enjoy the arts and instinctively, without conscious awareness. Understanding - a luxury designed for those who want to afford it.

Well, let's go to the other side.
When a person paritsya in the bath, he gets the pleasure.
When he looks at the picture of your favorite artist - also enjoys.
You offer some sort of "understanding".
Does she understand a man the pleasure of soaring broom "
Probably, but the word here is clearly too much.
And so with art: if a person takes pleasure from dialogue with the art, the question of "understanding" as something out of the brackets.