Art: Agreeing to Disagree it’s Truth
Truth is a funny little thing when related to art, in my opinion. There are many aspects to it: truth as seen by the artist in his subject and his vision, truth in the viewer’s perspective and own idea of how something should look, and truth from the subject of art, if it is represented honestly and accurately.
Sometimes, very rarely, those considerations can come together in a piece of art, and then it becomes universally acceptable, pleasing, and comforting in its realness. If an artist sees an apple and paints the apple exactly as it is, then there is truth in that painting of an apple. The apple in the painting is the apple in real life, and it is an apple that the audience can collectively identify as an apple. In short, it is an “honest” painting of an apple.
But that doesn’t really hold any depth, does it? So what if it’s the most perfect painting of an apple in existence? There’s nothing more that could hold an audience’s interest past the congratulatory “Oh wow, that apple looks so real.” It is an apple, period. Is that then considered art?
What I’m trying to say here is that the logical and straightforward “truth” that we find in art can be limiting to art itself. Capturing the true nature of sadness in a concerto or the musky colors of dawn in an oil painting with the strict though of “I must be true to my subject, it must be exactly how it is right now,” is not only impossible, but also foolish and stifling. The human condition of all artists and viewers make it so that there can never be one single satisfying truth that can resonate in every single person. If one stubbornly believes that a certain piece of art or music should be just this certain way because that way is the only true way, then one is closing oneself off from the glorious array of variety that art has to offer. One can no longer appreciate the beauty in the color fields of Rothko if one staunchly believes that art should be realistic. One can no longer hear the passion in a soaring rock song if one only believes Mozart to be the only honest composer.
The only truth that we are obligated to understand is the truth of the artist’s vision for his or her work. We do not have to think it is beautiful or worthwhile, but we can accept that it is his or her vision, the product of his or her own imaginings and beliefs, his/her own eyes and ears.
Once we loosen the reins on our own idea of what true art is, if there even is such a thing, then we begin to understand that yes, we do see and hear truth in art. It might not be our idea of truth, but it is truth nonetheless, otherwise it wouldn’t exist in our world. It is not necessarily our version of the truth, but it is someone else’s, and that we must accept and appreciate.
Interesting discussion. You have equated beauty to truth.