"A work of art is not an expression of something which can exist just as well without this expression.

 

In this article, Fiedler is looking at nature and man's (woman's) expression of it and how we judge that expression (object) the artist has made. He does not want humans to respond to nature or to objects merely with sensation. This is reserved for those who are less informed or have mental shortcomings or maintain themselves with manual occupations. 

"Art itself is a process by which the mental possessions of man are immediately enriched."

 Art is not to be about imitation but about revealing the essence. It must be grasped both mentally and passionately. A great deal of this article is an argument for the cognitive powers to foster independent thinking and to give the artist and viewer a more powerful tool of observation and understanding to both the essence and to the process rather than to merely react.  

 Fiedler also argues that technical skills are not enough to judge a work of art, "technical skills serves solely the mental process." We must never have a fixed code when we judge works of art.

 How then do we judge  (or give value to ) a work of art? Is there specific criteria? "Understanding must follow achievements of the artist, it can never precede them."

We can not have a fixed set of laws by which to look at objects because our understanding of them is always in flux. New imaginations give rise to new ideas and new ways of seeing.  

 He also states that, "Art that exists at all does not require the appreciation of being said to be good. However, it can never be bad." It is the process that matters. But Fiedler ends chapter 2 by saying that in some eras, "Art falls into the hands of less gifted, makes no important mental progress and is unable to offer any real value." It seems to me this latter statement is a judgement that perhaps he is also arguing against. After all, a new era may be acting under a new imagination and a new set of ideas.