Art and Truth

[ScylaX]

I'm having some problems dealing with Art as an epistemological practice
Here are my main postulates :
- The purpose of aesthetical exercises are to show something ("John cried a lot, his mother was sick from an incurable disease") instead of saying it ("Sadness is a state in which an individual is unable to express joy or happiness"). The main aim is to put something in front of you according to a certain perspective which is the perspective of the author (and, as you can see, saying something can be a way of showing it, one of rules in Art is not to put limit to how one can approach a fact).
- However Art hasn't any epistemological barrier, which is a pro and a con altogether. A con because it's mainly founded on potential confirmation bias and may be vulnerable to paralogisms (however an element of what make an art good may be the fact its thinking is way beyond logical fallacies) and other thinking oversights (as psychological bias mainly). However it's a pro, since it allows the artist to express his free will, creating his own rules and all, which grants the Art the possibility, and probably the main function to give ideas. As long as Art traces new ways, new perspectives, new state of mind and all (which is why Art can't be just random, creating novelty on an optimal basis, it has to be some sort of human reality in it to make it get really far), it's probably okay for it to not be as epistemologically scrupulous than what may be philosophy or sciences.
- Aesthetics purpose is to be contemplated.

What do you think ?

[V-Ormix]

I would hope it doesn't, but I see were there has to be "truth" for it to derive from an individual assuming it takes an input to make an output.

edit: experimental aside.

[ScylaX]

Originally Posted by MrPopadopalis25

So basically what you're saying then is that art in all of its forms doesn't have to be grounded in truth?

Not necessarily
What I mean is, how can a piece of art be objectively true ?
How can Art overshoots the problem of subjectivity and all ?

It has to get its roots in some sort of "true" feelings, with having the intuition that what you say is good and all, but there may be a border between what one thinks and what truly happens (which is why what people think varies so much).

[V-Ormix]

The emotions could be true, as much as the piece as a whole could. These two factors don't always counter balance the weight of the piece but as far as most people are concerned, if some thing is admirable about it, then its that they know is true.

[V-Ormix]

Actually, I see it a little more clearly now - you're saying how can a piece of art be true if it reflects some thing that's already happened? Meaning the art is now just a "story" or communication of some thing that was true because it was then and not now. I guess I still feel like, yeah, facts in history are very much true, but what an artist adds additionally to it could be true as well or maybe its exaggerated to emphasize some thing more strongly... hmmm

[dragon890x]

You're thinking about this too hard.

Art, and it's expressions in all forms, follow the same rules as speech.

One could argue that speech is a form of art.
One could also argue that art is a form of speech.

With that said, is there truth behind speech?

[V-Ormix]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

You're thinking about this too hard.

Art, and it's expressions in all forms, follow the same rules as speech.

One could argue that speech is a form of art.
One could also argue that art is a form of speech.

With that said, is there truth behind speech?

Welp, there's speech about true events :P

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by V-Ormix

Welp, there's speech about true events :P

Very good.

As you can see, the answer varies.

Art can be true if it meets certain conditions. One of them being the desire of the person analyzing the piece. If the person agrees with the piece of art, then the piece is true within the scope of that person.

Opinions, subjective truth, will never be static.

[V-Ormix]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

One of them being the desire of the person analyzing the piece. If the person agrees with the piece of art, then the piece is true within the scope of that person.

That's basically what I said 8)

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by V-Ormix

That's basically what I said 8)

Nice. v^-^

[kommisar]

you're more french than I am and you're using bigger english words what is this.


I think it's important to mention the intention of the artist can often be misinterpreted

[stargroup100]

My take on art is that there are inherent "rules" in place, not because what we, as humans, have established or decided upon, but the nature of the human itself.

Humans all share fundamental (not necessarily simple) traits, and art is a way we can sense and perceive organized stimulus that affect humans in a particular way. The "truth" lies in how humans react to this stimulus. It could be something base, such as invoking an emotional response, it could be trying to communicate some idea, such as a parody, or there might be some other purpose. While there is a staggering amount of subjectivity that goes into art, there is also an overwhelming objectivity to it, due to the fundamental traits that all humans share.

A very basic, crude example: A very loud, sudden, explosive noise has the ability to trigger reflexes in humans because the sudden stimulus is subconsciously processed as possible danger by the body. Soft, ambient sounds are not capable of this (excluding particular cases of association, but these are generally rare and a different case altogether). If such a simple case and interaction has such a fundamental effect on people that cannot be avoided, then it makes sense that organized sound (music) has the ability to affect people in very complex ways.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

I'm having some problems dealing with Art as an epistemological practice
Here are my main postulates :
- The purpose of aesthetical exercises are to show something ("John cried a lot, his mother was sick from an incurable disease") instead of saying it ("Sadness is a state in which an individual is unable to express joy or happiness"). The main aim is to put something in front of you according to a certain perspective which is the perspective of the author (and, as you can see, saying something can be a way of showing it, one of rules in Art is not to put limit to how one can approach a fact).
- However Art hasn't any epistemological barrier, which is a pro and a con altogether. A con because it's mainly founded on potential confirmation bias and may be vulnerable to paralogisms (however an element of what make an art good may be the fact its thinking is way beyond logical fallacies) and other thinking oversights (as psychological bias mainly). However it's a pro, since it allows the artist to express his free will, creating his own rules and all, which grants the Art the possibility, and probably the main function to give ideas. As long as Art traces new ways, new perspectives, new state of mind and all (which is why Art can't be just random, creating novelty on an optimal basis, it has to be some sort of human reality in it to make it get really far), it's probably okay for it to not be as epistemologically scrupulous than what may be philosophy or sciences.
- Aesthetics purpose is to be contemplated.

What do you think ?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say @_@

Art is just something born out of human creative abilities. We enjoy art because precisely because the faculties we use to enjoy art have been shaped over time by our own evolution (a nice side-effect). If art speaks to these faculties, it incites something in us (or may not incite anything at all, depending).

So I think the question of art as "objective truth" is pretty meaningless. Art isn't "true" or "false" any more than the square root of a turnip can be lsakdmlskjiated.

Instead of "truth" I might instead talk about some sort of "humanistic universality" or something. Stargroup said it nicely with "While there is a staggering amount of subjectivity that goes into art, there is also an overwhelming objectivity to it, due to the fundamental traits that all humans share."

[Cavernio]

I need to learn to save long posts before I misclick and delete everything...sigh

1. Traditional epistemology suffers from cultural and historical bias. Epistemological art is far more likely to ignore such restraints. Almost the same thing as saying it allows for more ideas.
2. All known truths are mired in art if you loosely define art. As already said, speech/language itself is only a represenation of our thoughts, and so could be considered art.
3. A lot of people are bored by more standard forms of learning. Art is more enteraining, and therefore more likely to be sought out as well as remembered and used. So putting epistemology in an artform you're more likely to actually make a difference in other people's lives.
4. Although art that aims to teach or understand can suffer from paralogisms, confirmation bias, etc, everything except the most basic factual information suffers from the same. It makes more sense to be aware of these problems in yourself and the information you get than to, say, avoid all art that aims to teach something. Thos are problems in and of themselves, not really problems with epistemological art.

[UserNameGoesHere]

I disagree that "Art can't be just random". There are many pieces of art which can be argued to be quite random. In fact if an artist wishes to convey the concept of "random" this is exactly what it will be. I suppose at this point it comes down to how you define art.

I would also argue that art and truth are tangential at best. Art can, but doesn't necessarily have to, convey truth. Also, whose truth? Different people can take different things from a same piece of art. If they come upon a realization of truth which differs from the artist's intentions, isn't this still a truth in the art itself? I guess it depends if you mean truths the artist wished to convey (consciously or subconsciously) vs. truths which may be subjectively derived.

Also just because a piece of art conveys something doesn't mean this something is a truth, even if the author believes it to be so. I would say simply that "Art conveys" rather than "Art conveys truths" because what art conveys is unconstrained.

[dore]

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]

"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.