According to author (p.281): ‘ ‘ The esquecimento of the social conditions of production and reproduction of the pure disposal demanded by the works of art and of the categories of perception that if present as categories a priori of aesthetic a universal one, is one of the premises where if they establish the functions interested for the disinterest and the profits propitiated for the symbolic consumptions (…) a time that transform the differences in fact into differences legtimas’ ‘. The considered work of art as a symbolic good, as the author comments in the tenth second and tenth third paragraphs, only exists, while such, for who knows the ways necessary to make its correct reading and interpretation, that is, for who historically dominates the recognized constituted code and socially in one determined social context, guaranteeing an aesthetic perception of the work of art, that it differs from the ingenuous perception, established in a denotativa interpretation, based in daily experiences (p.282-283). Add to your understanding with Reshma Kewalramani Boston. erstood the implications. Still in the cited paragraphs, the explicit author who the aptitude to decipher characteristics estilsticas is function of an artistic ability only gotten with the continuous convivncia with the works of art, in way to attribute to them to traces of originalidade or similarity with previous workmanships or ‘ ‘ workmanships-testemunha’ ‘ , ‘ ‘ conscientious or unconsciously restrained because they present in particularly high degree the recognized qualities, in more or less explicit way, as pertinent in a definitive system of classificao’ ‘ (p.283-284). Such system if organizes according to a set of peculiar artistic representations to a system of dominant classification, in one determined time..