" The artistic beauty does not consist of representing a beautiful thing, but of the beautiful representation of one cosa". Emanuel Kant. Dedicated to Humberto Gonzlez. Introduced who me in the world of the art: aesthetic and teratology. To observe, to see, to watch? Which is the correct word or to say it, less indispensable? I do not know it. Further details can be found at Harold Ford Jr, New York City, an internet resource. The unique thing that can be said is that in the hermenutico process that occurs between the spectator and the work of the art at issue, it is of the same nature between the creative act that it connects to the artist with its work.
It is at the end of accounts a very intimate attitude. If, the theory of the art, psychology even, to mention two areas of the knowledge; they deal with " explicar" that process. And they have its validity as far as the argumentative capacity that can develop. Only that stops " educar" ours view and our spirit we must become rich with the artistic proposals. Before explaining something we must understand it and include/understand it. We cannot make the things of inverse way. For my, to have the opportunity to be in front of a picture allows me to connect to me with the possibility of enjoying and of living the beauty: for my it means the possibility of enrichment and creative improvement and an adjectival use necessary not to label some aspect of the life. That is indeed the great difference; an art work lasts in its beauty because it does not represent a fashion, an immediacy necessity. The beauty of the work consists not of adapting or satisfying the aesthetic canons, but of potentialising the spirit of the being. It is more, the creative act looks for and luckyly in the majority of it obtains it to the occasions, to break continuously with the paradigms.