Is not it necessary to be satisfyingly disturbed (as moved ) emotionally, which is an understanding of art? And that emotional response is more positive the stronger art is and the more we are formed as humans by being exposed to art as much as practically possible + genetics. Is not understanding in art is mostly emotional maturity in the field? Boris Shoshensky
-- armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not necessary to understand or even to love some one's art. But It's necessary to not be disturbed by it. Yet to be disturb be it may be due to lack of enough exposure to it. Exposure to anything usually creates understanding and possibly love mando On Jun 6, 2008, at 1:15 AM, aesthete aesthete wrote: > - Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were > necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love. > > Monet > > _________________________________________________________________ > Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback. > http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/ > crea=srchpaysyou > back ____________________________________________________________ Enter for Your Chance to WIN* The TotalBeauty.com Summer Spa Sweepstakes! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/JKFkuJkEP31goBXvhZCyG1YILf2lTq hdsbsCZnWMO5evEfIrL3q6xe/
