Truth in painting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
Following Derrida’s book on ‘truth in painting’- I am interested to hear opinions.

Can a painting (or other art work) be true or untrue (not as a quasi-photograph, but as a work of art)? Can we look at one painting and say, “this is honest”, and another and say “this is a lie?” The same question applies to music. Music (and painting) is in a sense a statement (or is it?). Is it subject to the criteria of truth and falsehood.

Can poetry be true or false? Instinctively, I (and others, I assume) feel a reaction “this is true”, or “this rings false” to a poem.

What is the criteria?

Is art a language?
 
You last question seems to be the logical place to start with your questions.

Is art a language?

Many would argue that it is, because people use forms of art to “express” themselves and their thoughts or opinions. And holding to that idea, if art is in fact a form of language, then it would follow that as with any language, it can be used to tell truth or lies. And with any other language, there can be metaphors and allegories. Take caricatures for instance, taken literally a caricature would lie since it exaggerates the truth in regards to a person’s characteristics, but it is meant to express the truth that those exaggerated features are the most prominent on that person. Another example of art depicting truth is to look at the artwork in a more traditional church, such as in the stained glass windows. From what I understand, the images depicted in stained glass windows were used to help the unlearned learn more about stories in the bible while in church. Did the historical events that took place look exactly like the images depicted in the stained glass? Probably not, but they do depict the story’s truth.

And if visual art is a language, then it would also follow that written art is a language of it’s own. Poetry, for instance (because you mentioned it), is a written art, and like other art, is used to express a thought, emotion, or idea. In fact, the psalms, which are a type of song or poetry, exist within the bible and depict truths about God.

Hope this helps! God bless!
 
Never thought of this before so will wing it…could be missing something and not sure how this will turn out…

All communication is a suggestion. A typical rapper suggests and basically just talks his way through an attitude. Can he lie within the words ? I think so if thats the tool that he chooses for whatever objective. The objective may also be the lie itself in order to make a remark about a felt society which is deceptive. So process of elimination can easily include music with lyric and all poetry very capable of intent to deceive. This category I’m thinking belongs with communication in general and the properties of deceit.

Music without words…no, not to the listener because it is a story told…the listener was not there. There could be un-fairness or contradiction heard but who’s to say thats not exactly how the inspired story happened which modeled the piece. Now lets say I started playing the base for boogie-woogie and an etude in the treble and said I’m playing a tune written by Fats Chopin …well…I don’t know if anyone would want to even stick around much less make the necessary charges…Lets look at trying to lie with music. Something pleasant is arranged and then something in total contrast interrupts or syncopation starts happening out of nowhere…how could that not be a lie or false interruption.? well the problem as we know is…thats life. Even if counterpoint is used in total contrast in theme or key again thats life. Who can say it is not a true story…? Well…the composer can be lying to himself and thats as far I think this infraction can go. I heard a monster composition by a pianist who survived or witnessed many atrocities in the second world war about a year ago…someone sent it . If the listener did not know something un-natural inspired this piece , it would be easily guessed. A lie is un-natural to the truth because it contradicts what is fair and reasonable to the truth. Because the truth for inspiration cannot be told, we simply have no measure to evaluate the lie.

No emotion escapes the ability of transfer onto sound. Depth in dismay and contradiction experienced by emotion cannot escape humanity as we understand, knowing the ultimate in betrayal exists. So anything goes in sound. Appreciation in the management can “only be estimated” Translation is given to the listener, a silent jesture of regard. Translation…make up your own mind and then again , I trut you with this…provides for one of the powerful allures and so on in art. ( easy to see

So now art …I think the above poster covered cartoon art or avatar and exagoration stuff which could be an outright intent to deceive. Political cartoon a good example.

So now we go to paintings and so forth…First I think it would be crucial to mention that right from the get go deception is at play. The artist uses skills and techniques to trick the viewer into thinking that the story did not just happen…it is happening now. He does this time trick by clever ways of getting motion into the painting without the viewers knowledge…color, accent color placement…shadow, trigger colors, knowing where your eyes will follow in sequence…he controls the nano second observance and reaction sequence assuming the viewer is in a state of need for progress. For example blue is a healing color, red…black even a trick suggesting no color yet color is there…some of these effects are done by the artist without his absolute knowledge but a keen sensitive appraisal in review while in the works. Many many things going on here. Lets get to the lie and try to paint a picture which is an outright lie…well someone could paint waves coming into the shore and stick one in there in a placement which the viewer may not quickly pick up, by using color and shadow…and have the wave going backwards contrary to the laws of nature. Now this could be done I guess I just thought of it now to stimulate a suggested lost love ordeal in a couple of people on the beach…a story of a lost friend with appropriate depiction but with that darn wave which the viewer doesn’t see going backwards. A little kicker to say even nature itself is in dismay…the artist then says you feel it…? the viewer doesn’t even know why but buys the motion that has been created again by current in the moment association…its alive. Thats what these things try to do…make you feel not only alive but alive together in unity with the artist…not alone so to say…perseverance, hope, mutual goals, a joining with the painter perhaps on the other side. So like the music I think whatever is on the canvas or the manuscript it is a story and if theres nothing to fix a factual known to evidence the lie…the only lie possible in my opinion is the lie between the artist and himself…and just for interest theres all kinds of ways to make a wave go backwards in music without it being heard in an exact way. This is just opinion for now…maybe I’m missing something…never thought of this before.
 
Qoeleth said:
Following Derrida’s book on ‘truth in painting’- I am interested to hear opinions.

Can a painting (or other art work) be true or untrue (not as a quasi-photograph, but as a work of art)? Can we look at one painting and say, “this is honest”, and another and say “this is a lie?” The same question applies to music. Music (and painting) is in a sense a statement (or is it?). Is it subject to the criteria of truth and falsehood.

Can poetry be true or false? Instinctively, I (and others, I assume) feel a reaction “this is true”, or “this rings false” to a poem.

What is the criteria?

Is art a language?
Click to expand...
As a writer, editor and observer of the various arts, in all their subdivisions, there are criteria:
  1. Art is a communications medium. Successful art conveys a message. That message should be clear to the viewer/reader.
  2. True or false can depends on facts or philosophy. Art is often used during times of war. If you look at World War One and Two, propaganda films, writings, music with vocals and other means were meant to stir up patriotic feelings and to denounce or even degrade the enemy as crazy or less than a true human being. Skillfully written propaganda was broadcast by radio by all sides.
  3. Art has always been a language, but it ceases to communicate once it becomes unintelligible to the average viewer. At best, some kind of message could be conveyed but is unclear or, at worst, nothing is conveyed - it’s just a bunch of colors or shapes or lines. The philosophy emerged that realistic art was unnecessary once the camera could take color photos, so other ideas had to be invented.
  4. Even one of the top “fine art” magazines which features “non-representational”/ “you can’t tell what it is,” or it consists of distortions of real things, includes a brief biography of the artist, his intentions for doing the type of work he/she does and a brief explanation of the meaning of the photograph taken of the actual art that appears on the page before the text. Sorry, but each piece of modern/fine art should have a page of text like that appended to the actual art so I can “read” it and know the artist’s acuial intent.
  5. Truth and lies should be clearly defined, and for Christians at least, the clear dividing line exists. There is also the sense one gains that a piece of art does not “ring true” based on your own knowledge and philosophy. And some art lies by defaming what is good and true and right.
Hope this helps,
Ed
  1. There are some radical schools of thought in art circles that the viewer/reader/listener bears all the responsibility for understanding/feeling what the art actual is or means, not the artist. This divorces the critical communications intent which should obvious in all works of art.
  2. Ancient writing often started out as pictograms, such as Egyptian heiroglyphics, which depicted birds, humans and gods, among other tings, to convey a written language.
 
edwest2 said:
As a writer, editor and observer of the various arts, in all their subdivisions, there are criteria:
  1. Art is a communications medium. Successful art conveys a message. That message should be clear to the viewer/reader.
.
Click to expand...
Allow me to explore this in the context of an instrumental piece of music. We might hear one piece of orchestral music, and say “That was really true”, and another and say “That was somehow false or insincere”. But how is this possible?

Is a sad piece of music effectively a statement by the composer that “I am feeling sad”? But this is not always the case- the composer is a craftsmen, and can express moods which are not his or her own moods, and he is not claiming that his work is autobiographical. So, what is the content of communication of an sad instrumental piece “Th**is is sadness”?, or “You are feeling sad?”

It seems that art works (painting, music), etc. which use obvious cliches and pretentions tends to ring “false”. But why is that? Often, we speak most in cliches when we are most sincere (e.g. “I’m fed up!” or “You have no right to say that!” are cliches).

A sense I get with poetry which rings false (because it is cliched or pretentions) is , “The author is only pretending to be a poet”. But how can this make sense? They may be bad at their art, but still, it is not, literally, a pretense.
 
TRUTH can be found in Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna of the Rocks paintings.

I personally discovered a fascinating outcome if you overlay the two versions of Madonna of the Rocks in an alternating fashion. This can be found at my outersecrets website.

outersecrets.com/real/image/forum/davinci3.gif

My GIF Animation is also accessible at Wikipedia via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_of_the_Rocks
See ( Links - flashing overlay of the versions ) at bottom of page.

To understand the meaning of it, you have to be able to understand how the good beats the evil via passing information back and forth across time, thus knowing why the cross appears and disappears, why the lower babies hair appears and disappears, why the halo’s appear and disappear, etc., etc.
 
Yu guys are so confused that I cannot participate or interfere with whatever progress is to be.
 
Ok lets see who knows what they are talking about…its assumed that no specific knowledge is used from the period…analysis required…full explanations

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Home/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/New%20Bitmap%20Image.bmp
 
edwest2 said:
As a writer, editor and observer of the various arts, in all their subdivisions, there are criteria:
  1. Art is a communications medium. Successful art conveys a message. That message should be clear to the viewer/reader.
  2. True or false can depends on facts or philosophy. Art is often used during times of war. If you look at World War One and Two, propaganda films, writings, music with vocals and other means were meant to stir up patriotic feelings and to denounce or even degrade the enemy as crazy or less than a true human being. Skillfully written propaganda was broadcast by radio by all sides.
  3. Art has always been a language, but it ceases to communicate once it becomes unintelligible to the average viewer. At best, some kind of message could be conveyed but is unclear or, at worst, nothing is conveyed - it’s just a bunch of colors or shapes or lines. The philosophy emerged that realistic art was unnecessary once the camera could take color photos, so other ideas had to be invented.
  4. Even one of the top “fine art” magazines which features “non-representational”/ “you can’t tell what it is,” or it consists of distortions of real things, includes a brief biography of the artist, his intentions for doing the type of work he/she does and a brief explanation of the meaning of the photograph taken of the actual art that appears on the page before the text. Sorry, but each piece of modern/fine art should have a page of text like that appended to the actual art so I can “read” it and know the artist’s acuial intent.
  5. Truth and lies should be clearly defined, and for Christians at least, the clear dividing line exists. There is also the sense one gains that a piece of art does not “ring true” based on your own knowledge and philosophy. And some art lies by defaming what is good and true and right.
Hope this helps,
Ed
  1. There are some radical schools of thought in art circles that the viewer/reader/listener bears all the responsibility for understanding/feeling what the art actual is or means, not the artist. This divorces the critical communications intent which should obvious in all works of art.
  2. Ancient writing often started out as pictograms, such as Egyptian heiroglyphics, which depicted birds, humans and gods, among other tings, to convey a written language.
Click to expand...
Hold on…if you need a caption whats the difference in looking at a comic strip…? Plus your confusing art with political statements…these things are nothing more then whats seen in newspapers in a period where no newspapers existed or an emphasis on art or gained influence by the artist was achieved ( politics’s…social influence always refer, IOW art used for say NAZI propaganda …thats not art thats a newspaper clipping with a caption…I think much of this appraisal area uses the subject to try and get in on talent which does not exist in the appraiser…I’ll grant history to the expert but obviously the buck stops there… Zero translation insight…( requiring a caption has nothing to do with art period)…otherwise there would be a product somewhere other then a bunch of mumble jumble talking in the appraisal end of it so to say. Workers not artists.
 
JesuisSean said:
TRUTH can be found in Leonardo da Vinci’s Madonna of the Rocks paintings.

I personally discovered a fascinating outcome if you overlay the two versions of Madonna of the Rocks in an alternating fashion. This can be found at my outersecrets website.

outersecrets.com/real/image/forum/davinci3.gif

My GIF Animation is also accessible at Wikipedia via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_of_the_Rocks
See ( Links - flashing overlay of the versions ) at bottom of page.

To understand the meaning of it, you have to be able to understand how the good beats the evil via passing information back and forth across time, thus knowing why the cross appears and disappears, why the lower babies hair appears and disappears, why the halo’s appear and disappear, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Well thats amazing but now you have taken over control and are the artist by manipulating work done…therefore the solid evidence suggests its your finding alone in whatever you wish to express.
 
Qoeleth said:
Allow me to explore this in the context of an instrumental piece of music. We might hear one piece of orchestral music, and say “That was really true”, and another and say “That was somehow false or insincere”. But how is this possible?

Is a sad piece of music effectively a statement by the composer that “I am feeling sad”? But this is not always the case- the composer is a craftsmen, and can express moods which are not his or her own moods, and he is not claiming that his work is autobiographical. So, what is the content of communication of an sad instrumental piece “Th**is is sadness”?, or “You are feeling sad?”

It seems that art works (painting, music), etc. which use obvious cliches and pretentions tends to ring “false”. But why is that? Often, we speak most in cliches when we are most sincere (e.g. “I’m fed up!” or “You have no right to say that!” are cliches).

A sense I get with poetry which rings false (because it is cliched or pretentions) is , “The author is only pretending to be a poet”. But how can this make sense? They may be bad at their art, but still, it is not, literally, a pretense.
Click to expand...
Oh well…read my first post over…Music is a translation of a story or experience communicated by sound …so if I whistle while I walk naturally coming home from a great date…remember the idea of it…work a counter point in…add …add…add…guess what…its symphony time…thats how it works and exactly how Strauss wrote some of his waltzes…youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_CTYymbbEL4

major compositions are not written fiddling around they naturally flow out of emotion , the composer goes with it and then just writes it down…not plays it…Thats how Ludwig was perfectly able once deaf, it made no difference…so your idea of sadness is totally out of place because as I informed in the original post…music is an experience which is told in a story by the composer…hes telling a story…not asking what you think but explaining his emotion with sound as the thing goes along. Think of whistle while you walk thing…if music is not out of this natural manner it is contrived (flow…?) which happen allot but then again is not always contrived all together…talent in arrangement mix’s into the deal
 
edwest2 said:
As a writer, editor and observer of the various arts, in all their subdivisions, there are criteria:
  1. There are some radical schools of thought in art circles that the viewer/reader/listener bears all the responsibility for understanding/feeling what the art actual is or means, not the artist. This divorces the critical communications intent which should obvious in all works of art.
.
Click to expand...
Its not a responsibility, art and music is an invitation from the artist to consider emotional reaction in display to this thing called life… the bottom line is that the work always reveals some things which the artist is not aware of on a conscious level…or is saying without knowing together with the general idea…he broadcasts his soul in a way… In a way the artist is similar to a person who wants to get caught in whatever the thing is saying…all communication don’t forget is a reaching out to the species. So this reality in the communication has been left out in above.
Also…if say a great pianist composed a great piece do you think he would play it with the same exact momentum in dynamic each time he plays the piece…no he would not. Therefore it means something a little different each time it gets played. The art and the music is always a suggested frame of things in a form allowing consideration …for the one playing it and then again for the listener or viewer to either relate to it or not.
 
Qoeleth said:
Allow me to explore this in the context of an instrumental piece of music. We might hear one piece of orchestral music, and say “That was really true”, and another and say “That was somehow false or insincere”. But how is this possible?
Click to expand...
I think the only way to make any sense of this type of statement is to acknowledge that we are speaking in metaphors about metaphors. In your example of the sad sonnet, perhaps there was no proposition communicated or none intended; perhaps the composer was merely trying to musically represent sadness in abstraction. In this case saying the sonnet was “true” is not judging the veracity of a proposition but perhaps recognizing that the sonnet did indeed capture something of sadness. I, for one, think that truth makes a terrible metaphor for what is happening in art, primarily because I am leery of translating the work into a propositional statement. Truth and falsehood become so much easier if we stay with entities where it is obvious what we mean by the terms.
 
Qoeleth said:
Following Derrida’s book on ‘truth in painting’- I am interested to hear opinions.

Can a painting (or other art work) be true or untrue (not as a quasi-photograph, but as a work of art)? Can we look at one painting and say, “this is honest”, and another and say “this is a lie?” The same question applies to music. Music (and painting) is in a sense a statement (or is it?). Is it subject to the criteria of truth and falsehood.

Can poetry be true or false? Instinctively, I (and others, I assume) feel a reaction “this is true”, or “this rings false” to a poem.

What is the criteria?

Is art a language?
Click to expand...
Painting, music, poetry, drama and all art are “truthful” in a deep sense - these “productions” disclose worlds. Take Heidegger’s analysis of Van Gogh’s painting of a pair of old leather work boots. The painting discloses, according to Heidegger, the world of a German peasant woman in late autumn harvesting potatoes.

I know Derrida has a problem with this analysis because Heidegger argues that the painting discloses “truth”. And Derrida has his own peculiar take on “truth”. But we can’t get into that here. And Derrida’s problem is not simply whether the painting depicts a pair of shoes (whether belonging to a peasant woman, Van Gogh or someone else).

Derrida strives to subvert any definitive disclosure.

On the contrary, I think art displays truth. World disclosure is a nice way of putting it.

We have to be careful not to think of world disclosure as representation of a fact or a particular object (as you might find in a careless photo). No, art shows us how it is with Being at some historical moment. As such, art does not express a self or a feeling - does not “express” anythingl that is “inside” someone. It’s a matter of a world that is already “outside”, you might even say, “transcendent” in the sense that any particular individual, e.g., peasant woman, is embedded in it. “Transcendent” here does not any straightforward theological connotations.
 
Thank you for this. It turns an abstract discussion into a real discussion.

Is there a world lurking in these shoes or not?
 
I’m just seeing above now for the first time and have a quick newsflash…the boots don’t belong to anyone person as all the so called pros are saying… but to gender…the one is obviously male and the other female…what is going on with this world…the one boot even has a type of dress like female apparel…how could this possibly be missed…

the boots are showing a finish in life…its over and in the background the workers are in their new dimension. I could really go on with this one…see the eye in the male boot half way up looking at the viewer…anyway thats the first step…and then looking as well qualifying the first step while looking in different ways…maybe tom I will continue…these things never can be rushed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top