Sosa holds one may rationally want to understand how the specific features of a particular artwork ground its aesthetic value, and that this understanding cannot be gained at second-hand. Such understanding requires one to have insight into the link between grounding features and that value, and this can only be gained through first-hand engagement with the artwork. I distinguish two senses of second-hand. In one sense Sosa is correct that one cannot understand why P at second-hand: one must have insight oneself into the link between explanans and explanandum, and this is an exercise of one’s own mental power. But this allows another sense in which understanding may be gained at second-hand, via a description of an artwork provided to one through testimony. I argue that an expert can attain understanding of how key features of an artwork ground its aesthetic value from a suitably rich description of it. Sosa has misidentified the epistemic good that can only be obtained from first-hand engagement with an artwork. This is not understanding of what makes it good, but an enjoyable episode of aesthetic appreciation of it.

索萨认为，人们可能理性地想要了解特定艺术品的具体特征如何奠定其审美价值的基础，而这种理解是无法通过二手资料获得的。这种理解需要一个人洞察接地特征与该价值之间的联系，而这只能通过与艺术品的第一手接触来获得。我区分了二手的两种感觉。从某种意义上说，索萨是正确的，一个人无法理解为什么 P 是二手的：一个人必须自己洞察解释和解释之间的联系，这是对自己精神力量的锻炼。但这允许另一种意义上，通过证词对艺术品的描述，可以从第二手获得理解。我认为，专家可以从适当丰富的描述中理解艺术品的关键特征如何奠定其美学价值的基础。索萨错误地识别了只有通过亲身接触艺术品才能获得的认识论利益。这不是对是什么让它变得好的理解，而是对它的审美欣赏的愉快插曲。