Art and Truth

[dore]

Re: Art and Truth

Art itself isn't "true" just like Rubix said in the sense of conveying deeper meaning. (The only way art is true in itself is that it exists in some form, but that's tangential at best.) Art, however, conveys truth to its audience in the way the audience experiences the art. If I view/listen to/watch/whatever art, I experience its emotions and from there extrapolate something a little more conceptually tangible, and maybe I learn something from it. The truth comes from experiencing art and finding ways to apply its meaning (however you perceive it) to the world around you.

[Cavernio]

Re: Art and Truth

"The only way art is true in itself is that it exists in some form, but that's tangential at best"

A documentary or even a movie about any historical event portrays true events and likely conveys true emotions that someone experienced. If it is accurate and emotions are represented unambiguously (which could be argued could never be possible and there could be a whole discussion around that), then it is true and is also art. Hence, as Scylax put it, it would be epistemological art.

Trying to convey get some sort of deeper understanding of the world via an abstract painting, of course, would be much harder. However, if the artist tried to convey something in that piece of art, be it a real life event or a personal experience or emotion of some sort, and some people interpret it the way the artist intended, then that piece of art is also conveying truth, as the artist sees it of course.

And then there is also the fact that epistemology is about discovery. On the surface only true things can be learned and discovered, but interpretation plays a huge role. For example, economics has created new ways of examining monetary interactions, and new economic theories are always being made. Did the economy exist before anyone bothered to try and view all the small interactions as a grander whole? Yes. Is it truthful to not view monetary exchanges as part of a grander scheme? Yes. Is it truthful to apply economic theory so as to get a different understanding of the economy? Yes. The ability to meld ideas and create new ones based on seemingly unconnected facts or pieces of information is what makes us intelligent.

Besides which, even if someone puts a circle on a piece of paper, not everyone necessarily sees the same thing, as has been postulated. It requires a lot of processing to interpret it as a closed shape that has no points and only 1 side. A fish might not see it as such. However the circle still exists in reality somewhere, even if the fish can't interpret it at all.
If we can define a circle as truth and as existing, then I don't see why we can't define something a little more nebulous and more artistic as being true.