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 ?