In this chapter, there was a quote which i feel examined artistic identifications very well and helped to make understanding the concept of understanding background information very effective.

"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point when i saw that mountains are not mountains and waters are not waters. But now that i have got the very substance I am at rest. For it is just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. "

This quote really points out the importance of understanding, which is a main component of appreciating an artwork in some cases, but it also really stresses the fact that beautiful things need to be seen as what they are for the sake of being beautiful alone. This does arise concern and question because understanding can sometimes diminish the appreciation of the piece itself in some cases. Like, for instance, say there is a beautiful paining that I see for the first time, and then I find out, it was painted by Hitler. And that can have a great effect on the judgement of the artwork. But it does not have to do with the aesthtic quality of the art, it has to do with our moral ability to appreciate art even when circumstances prove to be less than perfect.

So in order for things to be appreciated as they truly are, we go through phases of seeing for what it is, then trying to understand them, and then once we know how to understand, we can see them for the way they are again. This reminds me of and adage "If you ever want to know what should be done with the world, ask a very old person or a very young child." it seems that we have the instinct for seeing things as they are, and then they are clouded as we go through life and are exposed to different things, especially in the artistic sense and our abilities to interpret it.

So this leads me to my question. is it really that the more you know, the less you understand?