Preconceptions Influence what we See ( from Yousra)

In this article, we understood the concept that ignorance makes us see things differently. For example, I want to use this stop sign as an example. Obviously, it is written in Arabic: STOP. However, I remember in 10th grade, a new international student asked me about the meaning of the sign by
asking me what is was. I simply stated that it was a stop sign with STOP written in Arabic, and for me it was an obvious answer. Since she could not read Arabic she shared with me her completely different perspective of the sign. To her it looked as if two people were playing with a sledge, and
that is what she believed until that very moment when I revealed the truth about it. This shows that ignorance doesn't leads us anywhere so we try to find the truth through something familiar. Maybe the stop sign for that girl was quite intimidating so she had to find a secure answer that would justify it or see meaning or beauty from another perspective, her own. These 'revelations' do not only happen with stop signs. For example, when I read novels that interest me and they become popular enough to be translated to a movie, sometimes, I refuse to watch these movies because I know the film is going to ruin my perception of the main character. From the day you watch the movie, which is from the filmmaker's point of view, you are going to be influenced by it, and whenever you hear the name of the character you will immediately think of the actor and not the image that you created in your head. Therefore, I agree that sometimes truth restricts our perception not in terms of knowledge but in terms of conceiving our world.

Communicating through Art (Arri's post)

The truth in any type of art, be it a painting, music, literature, dance or football, will always be a controversial topic. I do not believe that artists have a special "responsibility" to convey the truth because, as Himanshi stated in her previous post, the idea of what truth is is another controversial issue all on its own. Therefore, the idea of what an absolute truth is will vary according to the perceptions of people, and what they think truth is or isn't. Also, as mentioned in the article "Art and Truth", from the extract by Douglas Morgan, trying to dissect an artwork to find some sort of knowledge or truth from it completely takes away the meaning the artist put into his work. What I think artists try do is try to express what they feel at a particular moment in their lives through their art and try to make their audience, whoever is experiencing their art, feel the exact same way. An abstract artist may be painting a particular scenery, that when looked upon by someone else seems to be nothing like the scenery in front of the artist, just random blobs of colour. However, what the artist is doing is capturing the atmosphere of the scenery, how s/he felt when they looked at a particular area, and try to inspire those same feelings in the audience through the painting.


The question that needs to addressed first in order to fully respond to whether there is truth in art or not, is what kind of truth are we talking about? The general idea of truth is very ambiguous, because we all have different interpretations of what truth is. That moment of inner ecstasy when enjoying any of the forms of art which people enjoy, the thrill of experiencing that art and being a part of it, can lead people to a certain truth, maybe about themselves, maybe about something else in their lives. Perhaps there is no "truth" found in those moments of art experience either, because the way people feel with certain kinds of art cannot be expressed in words. It is something intangible, fragile, and elusive that we cannot tie down with our logical thinking, and therefore will always be an issue of perception and a topic of controversy.

Should this photograph be considered as art?

This image was taken during the Great Depression. It shows a mother in absolute despair. Today, this photograph is extremely famous and it is often seen hanging on walls. Is it ethical to take someones suffering and to be turn it into art? 

The Power of Storytelling

As I was reading the article, "How to Tell a True War Story" I was somewhat confused because I was not sure about what it was that the author was trying to communicate. By the end however, I felt that this article discussed the power of storytelling. The article begins with the assertive phrase, "This is true." as though the speaker was trying to convince us that what he is about to tell us is in fact the truth. Instead, I think that the speaker plays two roles throughout this article: a soldier and a storyteller. It is incredible how the storyteller has the power to manipulate and mold the listener's opinions or perception. It is how the story is told that will affect your perception of it. Although death is explicitly referred to in the article, there are no vivid descriptions of blood and carnage. Curt Lemon's death is described as a beautiful scene; our perception of ugliness and beauty is altered. It is as though the complexity of war is impossible to communicate which is telling a "true" war story is extremely difficult. At times of war, soldiers become killers and go back to primitive and uncivilized instincts. Perhaps this distortion of human behavior is reflected in all war stories; nothing makes sense anymore. What should be beautiful is ugly and what should touch us does not. For example, I was more affected by the buffalo scene than by the description of Curt Lemon's death. After reading this article, it seems that there is no single way of telling a "true" war story because each war story is unique. Many do not have a point and many appear to be untrue. I think that this is the same with storytelling in general. It is always very difficult to try and tell what you have gone through to someone else; some details go missing or are replaced with fiction. There is a quote in the article which I think perfectly captures what the speaker is saying:

"It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe." 

Art and Truth: Two Different Dimensions

Art, I love art. That’s a fact. I draw. That’s another fact. I paint real life scenarios. That’s also another fact. I express reality through my painting, well that’s a lie. You might be asking yourselves, “If I am painting what I see, what makes my paintings less reliable to express truth?” I have seen various paintings that express certain battles, even the ones that took place during Prophet Mohammed’s era. However, how can I believe that the contents of the paintings are real? How can I know that the person who painted them had the intention of describing the truth rather than picturing what he thinks took place? The problem is that it is almost impossible to determine truth through a simple painting.  I can never know if that particular painting insinuates truth or is it what someone thinks the truth was. Almost every artist would admit that art comes from within, and that is actually a fact. One paints his emotions rather than painting an image. That is because by the end, the artist realizes that the image he has created consists of his emotions only, nothing else. Therefore, by integrating emotion and truth, one can draw the ultimate conclusion of that truth can never be told through art. 

Does art hold a responsibility?

Perhaps I should start by saying that I am no artist. I can barely distinguish pink from purple and green from blue. I can not distinguish between a clarinet and a flute nor can I tell the difference between Salsa and the Tango. Indeed, I do not have a speck of artistic ability. I am, however, a viewer of arts and an ‘appreciater’ of arts. Therefore although I too am going to attempt to answer the very question that many of my peers have tried to answer (Should art bear the responsibility to tell the truth?), my points will be developed through the eyes of an audience member rather than those of an artist.

Since the responsibility of presenting the “truth” is placed on the shoulders of art, it would be wise to first ponder over this seemingly simple yet mysteriously convoluted concept. Truth in simplest terms, is defined as reality or maybe even the interpretation of reality. However, it definitely has more to it than just this. Truth, like reality, is subjective. It varies from person to person; language to language and even culture to culture. Therefore, if we were to assert that arts bear the responsibility to project the truth, the question we must ask ourselves is “Which truth?” The precarious nature of truth in itself is sufficient to undermine the assumption of the duty placed on arts. Rather, as an audience member, although I would love to see artworks that embed some aspects of life which I can relate to (which I would define as ‘my truth’), I would be more fascinated to see more surreal, romantic, imaginative artworks. Therefore, as I see it, art should hold no responsibility. It should be free from any expectations and should used as a tool to convey whatever the artist feels-be it his/her “truth”, or not.

Another aspect I would like to touch upon is does art portray the truth. This question is more difficult to answer especially since my skills as an artist are indeed both pitiful and pathetic. However, following the train of thought from my previous argument, it is only logical to say that for the most part, art does reveal the “truth,” (even if it is not the “truth” that we seek by definition). Since truth and reality are subjective, what one painter draws on his canvas maybe HIS truth and HIS interpretation of reality however the artwork may be castigated in society since it is not the kind of “truth” people want to see (or can relate to, i.e. the reality).

The relationship between art and truth is a controversial one. While some believe that the two should be like closely knitted spouses, others, who are more liberal, seem to endorse the two concepts as being two distinct entities. With no artistic talent of my own, but with passion to see various forms of arts nonetheless, I for one believe that art should not bear any expectations or responsibilities. However, at the same time, I do believe that all arts do hint at some mysterious kind of truth--a subjective truth, which may not be reality but is truth for that specific artist nonetheless.

Art is football and football is art. Art has no limits.

To prove that that art is endless and is the broadest raw element, I will give a example of football. For me, football is what provokes the greatest emotions. It is a form of stress release, and the Friday afternoon match is the moment I look forward to the most the whole week. The emotions I feel when doing a nutmeg, lobbing the goalie or finishing a slalom are unparalleled and unequaled. For the same reason that I do not understand Art School, many of you will not understand my feelings, or will attempt to and say you will but really won't. I don't expect to you, but fortunately there are many others that are illuminated in the same way that I have.

I have posted a video that in my opinion corroborates mine and Amir's feelings in the same way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stxr8NqpvKo

The movements, the tricks of football, the outcome of it, the passion put in by the fans are all elements that contribute to this art. It is not for no reason that it has been called the beautiful game and that it evokes feelings superior to any other.

Players have said that scoring a goal is even better that having an orgasm, and yes, it is. Sorry for the extreme example.

I say this to prevent the dismissal of more unconventional forms of art, like football for example.

Like in  any other form of art,  absolute truth cannot be reached in football, just a reflection of the superior side, or tactic, or team in the game. Never in history has one team beat another, in direct meetings over 10+ matches and won all of them. Thats over 150 years of matches. Therefore absolute truth cannot be reached even through football. 

Art and Truth?

Everything is art. In my opinion art does not have one single definition, and never will. Art simply pleases, provokes, stimulates. Most of all, it doesn't have to be on purpose, what about pieces dont under trance or under the effect of drugs, or simply lucky pieces of photography or a particular skill that comes out by chance? What particularly provoked this in me was the article about the sheep's hide and the modification of it. The modification of it- the pouring of the ink- if it were to be quantified, is equally as much "art" as is the original piece itself. The fact that the artist said he was insulted is hypocritical since the last thing he wanted is to have a lack of reaction. I do not believe there is an absolute truth in art, whether it is drawn, painted, sang, sculpted, or more beautiful forms of art, like football. Art is the single most subjective thing on this planet, coming from the broadest range of cultures, traditions, artists who each try to express their own beliefs through their work. Everyone tries to portray what they believe, and since according to theoretical ethics there are an infinite amount of moral backgrounds, there will be an infinite amount of beliefs expressed through art, therefore barring us from achieving an absolute truth through art. Certainly what art does portray is personal truth. 

Is Photography Art? Article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/oct/19/photography-is-it-art

A good article to read if you would like to know more about the topic of my blog entry :)

Is Photography Art?

"Lunch Atop A Skyscraper" (1932)

I am a big lover of black and white photography. I’ve always seen it as a way into a past world that we will never be able to access; a time-traveling device, of sorts. There is something about monochromatic photographs that ignite in me a wonderful sense of comfort, yet at the same time the sense that they carry some kind of untranslatable mystery or secret. But are these pictures really art?

When you think about it, photography is just the “art” of capturing a moment in life that we have no control over-- something that is already in existence, something that has not been created by ourselves. Anyone can buy a camera, become a “photographer” and call themselves an artist. Is it ethical to take a picture of everyday life and give ourselves the credit for capturing that moment, even though it is not truly of our making?

Perhaps my relationship with photography makes me naturally inclined to believe so, but I think that there is much more to photography than taking pictures of anything you consider aesthetically beautiful. There is contrast, value, balance, line and even texture in every photograph. It is true that the subject matter and the content presented in a photograph is already naturally present-- a human, for example, is not designed or constructed by another human for the purpose of art-- but the composition, the angle and the lighting are almost always in the hands of the photographer. A professional photograph can be distinguished from an amateur one using these criteria. It is those photographs which capture the rarest glimpses of the world’s beauty-- with just the right lighting and a perfect balance (or imbalance) in the composition-- that can steal your breath away. Photography is about the intention of the artist; it is about procuring emotions, thoughts and other images into the viewer’s head. This is what I consider art.

If you are still not convinced, then think about the artistic movement of Impressionism. Weren’t these paintings just an old-fashioned form of photography? Impressionists sought to capture everyday moments-- from children running around in a park to customers eating croissants at a café-- with their brushstrokes. These scenarios and landscapes did not emerge from their heads, but came from observation. Conventional artists (painters, sculptors, etc...) are just as much observers as photographers. Photography is simply another medium of seizing the world’s beauty.

Painting of Sunset on River

Sonnenuntergang am Fluss bei Albert Bierstadt in relation to the river described in the article "Life on the Mississippi:" 

Source: http://www.handgemalt24.de/Sonnenuntergang-am-Fluss-von-Albert-Bierstadt-21521

I love this landscape painting - it captures a very specific setting that hardly any photograph can capture.  Paintings like these, to me, are very truthful because they fill me with wonder about the pieces of real life that are complete in their own way.  The visual representation of an atmosphere or feeling is overwhelmingly powerful, I believe. 

How different or similar is the image of the river in your imagination from this Ölgemälde (oil painting)? 

Artist Quotes

http://www.arts2u.com/famous-artist-quotes.html

Guernica

Pablo Picasso's painting Guernica:


Source of image: http://impact-of-war.blogspot.com/2011/05/guernica-by-pablo-picasso.html

Some artworks such as this one have a deeper meaning than it may appear, and under the absurdity or surrealism one can find an artist's individual statement.  Once one comprehends what an artwork is about, every detail attains a certain expressiveness and profoundness although of course it is impossible to retrieve the exact sentiment that the artist felt. 

The judgement of the beholder is also influenced by the level of education he/ she has retrieved.  If I had seen this painting a year ago, I might have dismissed it as "chaotic" or "unnatural" or "disturbing" or would have said "What in the world is this supposed to be" and "That horse does not look like a horse."  However, having encountered the styles of different artists and time periods, and having explored the meaning behind surrealist artworks, those arguments of dislike no longer stand.  It was until I tried myself to create such an expressive, emotive piece that I could understand the purpose of this art. 

"Like emotions, colours are a reflection of life." - Janice Glennaway 

In any case, I would like to point out that if one desires to examine an artwork let alone judge it, it is the responsibility of the beholder to find out as much background information as possible on the time period that the art piece was created, on the artist's life, and on events that might have influenced the piece.  Visual art is neither deliberate nor unintentional.  It is a form of expression, just like language, but more than language.  Indeed, art involves feelings - each of the characters in Picasso's Guernica express an emotion, and together, they bring out the horror, agony, and violence of war.  Art is also cultural; I read that the horse and the bull depicted in Guernica are important to Spanish culture. 

Guernica is a piece that expresses Pablo Picasso's feelings and his point of view on the impact of war, specifically the impact of the German/ Italian Blitzkrieg bombing of the city Guernica in Spain.  The painting is now an anti-war symbol. 

"The essential function of art is moral." - D.H.Lawrence, 1885 - 1963

Just because I have done some research on Guernica doesn't mean that I understand the artist; nevertheless, I have gained some insight into the meaning of the artwork.  The "chaotic," "unnatural," and "disturbing" elements in the painting have now become meaningful in relation to war and suffering. 

The author of Art and Truth must also have done some research in order to state: "Picasso's painting Guernica (1937) alerted the world to what was going on in the Spanish Civil War by depicting a village and its people destroyed by bombs." 

Defining art

As learned, a word can have both a denotative and a connotative meaning.  The connotation of a word is determined by one's perception of the word.  For me for instance, art refers more to the visual arts than anything else because I have liked to draw and paint since I was little, and although I have played an instrument and sang a little bit, it was art that I enjoyed most. 
Do feelings influence how we define words? 

Denotations of art:  taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.  
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.   
4. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

On what basis or criteria would you decide whether something is art?   

Art makes me think of the Mona Lisa, beautiful Renaissance paintings, a surrealist installation, a trumpet, and dancing children.  What does the word art make you think of? 

Does the origin of words matter?  Do definitions of words change over time? 

Art MUST convey the truth.

Art can sometimes convey the truth about certain facts that range from historical or political events to personal and emotional feelings. The Art that is intentionally made to be the media to convey specificities about whatever subject, should bare the responsibility to convey the truth. When one says the truth, complexity surfaces. What does one mean by truth? Honestly from my point of view, truth remains a very subjective concept. The person will only believe what one's mind has been trained to believe and what one's brain feels to believe. Obviously, people will ALWAYS find troubles believing the "truths" that do not correlate with their views on life. From my own limited point of view that truly makes sense to me and that might not speak to all the people out there, I believe that "Art" is only the "truth"about the artists' views on life. I believe that an artist will only speak out, and create an artistic statement that interests him or her. I believe that when an artist chooses to convey a certain message for whatever subject area he or she chooses to focus on, then they should bare the responsibility to convey the "truth" about it. Again when I say "truth" I specifically refer to the artists' own view and dedication to transmitting their subjective feeling of the artwork to the public. An artist must not lie to the public or give out a wrong message or feeling unless he is using some sort of intelligent counter feeling that indeed conveys the true feeling. An artist should stick with his artistic values and must never fail to lie to his audience. One great example of the "lies" art might convey to the World has always existed in propaganda all throughout the world. 

What does Art have to do with Truth?

I think that art should not bear the burden or the responsibility of conveying the "truth". One can even argue that Truth, the absolute Truth is subjective and hard to define. How can art then certify the ultimate truth and distribute it to the public? This is a far too difficult job for something that is designed to demonstrate the beauty of humanity, the expansion of our talents as creative minds. Art should be designed to break away from truth, from the constraining shackles of reality. Art should be done to be able to evolve, and maybe deviate away from this tactile, too real world. Art is a break of the soul, a break from the everyday, and it is a break from what bothers us as human beings. What I absolutely love about art is that it is much more open to interpretation than any "truth". Truth is boring. Art is changing, evolving. Art is subjective. What I see in a painting is not what you see, and what I understand from the lines of a poem is not what you understand. Truth is here to bring conformity and a sense of belonging. However, as I said before, this is boring, too dull. Why expect something as beautiful as art to convey the same meaning to everyone, all around the world? There should be nuances to art, and I think that the job of telling the truth can be given to other subjects. History, geography and media for instance can all be responsible for telling the truth. Let art be free! Let art serve its primary purpose: to innovate and beautify this world. 

Art and Truth

While I am certainly in accordance with the argument that a universal truth cannot transpire off an artistic endeavor, I do however believe that an absolute truth does exist in art; a truth that not everybody might agree upon, but a truth that reflects the artists’ personal outlook on life and perception of reality. In my opinion, an artist will sell ambiguity to the superficial observer in order to ward off people whom he/she doesn’t consider worthy of this truth. Satirical art is a prime example of this: for instance, art critics during the 17th century would have never had the clairvoyance or audacity to point out the satirical nature of Lafontaine’s fables (some even called it abstract and juvenile), however, we now know that all his work was a way for him to convey the truth about the decadent monarchy at the time. So, can we say that there was no truth in his work if we didn’t know his intent? Truth does not necessarily refer to a concrete concept that cannot be contradicted, truth can be very personal and intimate and may only make sense to the person who owns it: in this case, the artist. Of course there is truth in every art work ever created, only, such truth can only appeal to the artist given the experiences and circumstances he/she went through. Discovering this truth is not the end all be all of art appraisal, but acknowledging its existence is a step closer to true appreciation of the artwork. 

Logical Thinking

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6t7KVJ/www.humourlaughs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Logic-thinker-Explained.jpg/

Ignore the grammar mistakes :) 

Looking for an "Absolute Truth"

A common human error seems to be the constant desire to find a so called "absolute truth." The article Art and Truth discusses this need to use art as a pathway to truth. Although I believe that in many ways art does reveal a truth, it is impossible to find a single answer to the question or issue that it addresses. An interesting quote from the text states, "Our age is so addicted to facts, to finding out the 'truth' about things that we are in danger of overlooking the real value of art." Artists do not create their art with the belief that their creation contains this 'truth' (although some might). I think that art offers different perspectives especially when referring to the visual arts; most paintings are ambiguous and it is absolutely impossible for two people to see in an identical manner. Although their ideas may be similar, there will always one (or more) major difference. The Mona Lisa, one of the most acclaimed art works in art history, is in fact an ambiguous piece. It appears to be quite simple but I am sure that many interpretations of the piece exist. Some may see it simply as the portrait of a woman while others might believe that it contains a profound significance. I think that it is important to accept the fact that there is no absolute truth. The visual arts, to me, are a pathway to finding one's own truth. Often times, when analyzing a painting, revelations occur. The artist's brushstrokes might convey an important emotion or the expression on the subject's face could reveal the overall meaning, but it remains an individual experience that cannot truly be shared with others. As we have studied in TOK, we live in an individual world where perspectives cannot be shared or transmitted; it is something that we must accept in order to cease this "quest" for "truth." This is the same with poetry and works of literature which can be interpreted in numerous ways. Therefore, art definitely provides truth, but there are many truths each one as accurate and inaccurate as the other. 

Response to Life on the Mississippi

As Twain suggests, I agree that understanding something and appreciating something aesthetically is exclusive to each individual. Through the pilot's perception, we could see a completely different interpretation from what people stereotypically see a river as. I feel like there is a link to ones education and his capability to comprehend in this case, because the pilot imagined a negative and suffering experience associated with that river. Which brings us back to the paradigm that conveys that some people see things completely differently. In each every day situation, or experience some people could feel differently, for example some people could enjoy observing the beauty of nature, whereas others could not find anything special about it. I think that the river-boart pilot gained most by mastering the language of the river because he not only gained a superficial understanding of it, but actually lived and felt moving emotions by observing it. Even if they were not necessarily positive, art is about creating a reaction and the cliche of romance and beauty associated with a river is not necessarily how everyone feels about it. Should our experiences be independent and proper to us? Or can we share the same understanding and meaning to a river in this case?

Response to "Art and Truth"

There is some correlation between art and truth, but I do not think that an artist's main intention is to convey the truth through his paintings, literature etc... Even though artists has some sort of control in power over us, by shaping or making us realize through their work, for example the atrocities of war or the natural beauty of a landscape, it does not mean that their work necessarily reflect the truth.  As the article suggests about factually true statements, "art is not unique in this respect, truths of this kind can be transmitted in many ways." So, basically I think that works of art have a deeper meaning and they represent more than just truth. Is truth based on someone's personal and ethical beliefs? An artist can have a certain perception and way of interpreting a work of art, and can create on the basis of what he thinks is the truth in his own eyes.  What I also find interesting is that photographers and filmmakers are selective in their choice of subjects. They have the ability to focus on only certain details that they think are the "truth", but can also manipulate images like in war to show the atrocities to shock us. But aren't we limiting what art is by saying it reflects the truth? Isn't art supposed to be an inexplicable and unique?

How to Tell a True War Story- Shera Response

What I found really interesting in this article was the fact that he was feeling pain (due to the fact that he had recently lost his friend as he passed away), and as a result he wanted to force pain upon another live being (the baby buffalo).

Also, there were these two lines that I found particularly meaningful (as well as beautifully written :o )

• "Though it's odd, you're never more alive than when you're almost dead" (speaking about war of course)
• "There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, hate into love, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery."
  
  
  
  

1) This feeling even for us who have not been to war, we understand. Whenever we hear of a death in our circle of friends/family, we know exactly what the author meant when he wrote this.

2) I understand that things would become unclear for someone in war because death becomes something so normal for you, since you are witnessing it every day. Things start mixing up and and basic principles start becoming confusing. Since your main purpose in war is to survive, and the only way to do that is to kill other people, killing becomes normal. However, for those people that are not in war, killing is immoral and as a a result wrong. It is for this reason that I understood the author when he said the above.

Art and Truth- Shera response

I must admit that the power and that the impact of the work of artists is indeed considerable. However, I do not agree with the fact that artists have a responsibility to convey the truth. Like mentioned in the articles, there are several different ways to convey the truth, and to be honest, in my point of view, the sole purpose of art is to please our eyes. As it was stated in the article, what truth can be expressed in art that cannot be expressed in a sentence? Although language is flawed (as we have previously learned in TOK class), due to misinterpretations and connotations (and other factors), we are able to convey the truth through language. Aren't we? Later on in the text, the author made a point about how addicted we were in finding the truth, and I definitely agree. I don't understand the need for us to direct everything in order to find a deeper meaning, a truth. Art is there to please, whether it is music, literature, art, drama. We take pleasure in seeing, reading, or attending this things, and if we are so preoccupied in finding the truth, we will not be able to have that pleasure. Indeed, if art always represented truth, then we would be diminishing art to a simple report on life and true thing in our lives. As I stated earlier though, this is not the point of art! In fact, if we did have to look for the truth in each painting, writing of literature, or play that we watched, we would be so focused on the truth that we will not be enjoying the art itself. In the story "Life on the Mississippi", as the character start understanding the language of water (just like the language of art), he was able to travel and avoid all the dangers in the river. However he was not able to actually appreciate the river and the water as art, which it used to be, before he understood the truth. This can be effectively conveyed through this line, "But I had lost something too. I had lost that which could never be restored to me while I lived." As a result, if we do not want the romance and the beauty to disappear from art, we must not focus on the truth since it is (honestly) irrelevant and would only diminish the art itself.

Does absence of knowledge excuse you from an action?

Is the situation above ethical, non-ethical or over-ethical? 

Truth and Fiction

 
1 Read the two articles passed out in class: Art and Truth and How to Tell a True War Story.
2 Before our next class you must have read these articles and contributed to this blog page
Contributions include comments, questions, connections, analysis etc. Whether one contribution or more I expect a minimum of 150 words from each person.