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.
That's yet another interesting idea I've come across, how truth is different for everyone and especially the artists. As you stated, all arts contain some mysterious truth, one that is subjective and one that may not be reality but that is specific for every individual artist. I think that while artists are not strictly responsible for transmitting some kind of truth for his audience, all artists make their painting with a purpose. While for some its just money, although I doubt it's the sole reason, they usually want to transmit a beauty, a sort of truth as we're calling it. We really must call it a coincidence that most of us find certain paintings better than others because of the various types of truths we're all seeking.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that relates to this idea is that we can't exactly evaluate the value of art. Remember the pieces of art that were recovered from the trash that we saw in class? In that case, even the artist doesn't like the beauty, or the type of truth it conveys while another person finds this truth in those specific paintings. Going back to this definition of truth that you spoke of, I found that it was something that is in accordance with reality. The only trouble is, one can list hundreds of pieces of art that have no relationship to reality whatsoever. So this puts us back into this question about truth. Perhaps art is made to be simply viewed and appreciated as you do in your account. Looking at the opposite side, does art need to be appreciated? Do we all have this responsibility much like the one imposed on artists? Finally I'd like to add one more idea to this 'truth'. We can relatively eyeball the price of certain art, however as we had chewed over in class, art's value is determined primarily by its age and then by the content. Therefore can we say that the proximity to this