(sorry that I'm typing in English as I do not have Chinese input in my lab. The article is so interesting that I can't wait commenting :P)

The author seems to argue in the following way.

1. Art answers some of the artists' private and communities' collective questions --> it shares some traits with scientific endeavors Since such quetions are time-dependent, art works therefore are also identifiable by specific styles. However, one shouldn't place emphasis on this aspect and ignore more ancient art works because aesthetic problems are never completely solved.

2. Art is somewhat subjective, illusory and cumulatively evolved by the entire artistic community.

Taken together, art is neither empirical science nor madman's frenzy. One shound't try to 'understand' or condescend a work of art; but only to seek self-transcendence in it.

But what is this self-transcendence attitude towards art works he prescribes?

Is it connecting to what the artist feels when he produces the piece? If so, then what should we feel about this?



Is it a kind of Nirvana state?

Is it a kind of transcendental noumenal understanding of art that is not comprehensible but only to be felt in a work of art?