#4 - Truth

In this series I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming.

Part 2: What is Good Art?

Beauty, truth, and the commodity or cult value of art are important elements in this part of the discussion. Plato claimed that truth in art is superior to that which gives pleasure. Heidegger’s view of truth that has been mentioned is the most important measure of how successful an artwork is in my understanding. Artworks are more successful when they are able to help us see things in a slightly new way or make a connection or come to a realization that we hadn’t before. In literature these truths are often themes about human nature or society. I think Aristotle was referring to this kind of experience (though he didn’t speak of it in this way) when he said that poetry shows us what might happen rather than what has happened. He said that it then becomes a philosophy that investigates what such a kind of person would do in such a situation. Sometimes a poem is worded just right to make me say, “Hey, that is the way the world is.”

The disclosure doesn’t need to be a dramatic revelation to be truth. Hegel also viewed art as a search for truth. For Hegel the truths that were communicated reflected mankind’s progression in obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don’t think that the truths art communicates need to be as grand as that. Hegel thought that art had made itself dialectly obsolete as man reached a point of considering abstract and spiritual concepts in accurate ways and art could no longer reveal such truths. I don't agree with this “death of art” as he calls it. I think a physical art like painting is often able to reveal abstract ideas and that something like poetry is very well suited the task (a hierarchy Hegel perpetuated). Art continues to play an important role in the communication of truth, if not necessarily in its discovery.

The truth that is communicated is often related to that part of a work that is being exemplified. Goodman does a good job of telling how this works. He discusses exemplification as a sampling. A sample is only a representation of some of the characteristics of the original. Similarly, not every characteristic of an artwork is important. That part which the work exemplifies should be given prime consideration. In a landscape painting it might be the landscape's color or form that is being exemplified. In a minimalist sculpture it might be the precision of construction. In photorealism it might be the uncanny similarity between the hand painted surface and a photograph. In my view, it is the exemplified traits that concern a viewer who is seeking to obtain the communication of truth in an artwork. It is possible for a work of art to exemplify a thing the artist doesn’t intend. Even so, it is useful to consider an artist’s intent when searching for what is being exemplified. As such, art should be generally judged according to its intended purpose. Abstract painting is exemplifying something different than Roman statues and should not be expected to communicate truth in the same way.

In simple terms, successful art is that which is able to communicate truth. To further establish the success of an artwork it is helpful to look at the truth that is being revealed. Some truths are more meaningful than others. Truths about human nature might be more meaningful than the truth of orange paint for example. Sometimes the truth is deep and often the artwork that leads us to it requires a greater amount of exertion on our part to perceive it. Other times the truth is particularly profound, such as religious truths. In these cases it can be difficult for the artist to communicate the truth in a way that the viewer feels like they are discovering the thing rather than having it forced upon them. Truths that are forced overtly can be seen as cliché, kitsch, or sentimental nonsense. In these instances there may be no art as the idea isn’t so much discovered as it is a stated and the statement may be nothing new. Artistotle said that man’s greatest pleasure is learning. I think the pleasure we receive when recognizing truth in an artwork is closely related to the pleasure of learning.

Goodman made an attempt to qualify the nature of what an artwork has to offer when he wrote about the five symptoms of the aesthetic. What I like from his attempt (although these aren't the terms in which he spoke of it) is simply the idea that artworks that convey greater truth (the exemplified element), whether in quantity or quality, are more successful. He claimed that artworks should not arrive at a cognitively empty experience. They should appeal to the understanding and not just to the senses. Some truths can seem so complex that we only glimpse them briefly. Occasionally these collapse when it is discovered there was no substance behind the complexity, but other times the experience of perceiving truth is enriched by the complexity. Matthew Ritchie is an example of an artist that works on this end of the spectrum. His concepts are often so complex as to be indecipherable, but the glimpse of truth that can be seen are consequently richer.

Continued in the next post...