Posted at 11.29.2018
I decided to evaluate the quotation by Pablo Picasso: "Art work is a lay that brings us nearer to the truth" because the state contains several issues that, depending on definition, may lead to further troubles in interpretation. What do we signify by "truth"?; Exactly what is a "lie"; What do we mean by "arts"?; Who do we consider when expressing "us"? A piece of art, as another subject matter, is hermetically known by every specific. It inspires "us" all, both creators and receivers of the fine art - resulting in specific, personal, conclusions. Therefore, not only the main assumption but also the main end result of the arts is relativism; that's the reason we cannot condition any absolute ideals in it. As Pablo Picasso once said: "You will not understand arts so long as you won't understand that in arts 1+1 may give any effect but 2". This underlines, I really believe, that art work is never in a position to give an absolute answer, therefore is a "lie" in total terms. Hence, fine art outlines only the artist's personal impression, his truth, and cannot be a way of measuring any unambiguous variation between the overall and impression itself. Since it is the quotation of Pablo Picasso that is assessed in this essay, it could be explained with regards to cubist theory of fact. The theory remarks the total reality is a sum of all perspectives. Therefore the more personal truths, in relativistic terms, or various lies (not opening truths), in overall conditions, are added, the closer one gets to knowing the real truth. That's how the art work is a lay that helps us realize the truth. I will establish my thesis by analysing what kind of fact do paintings of Johannes Vermeer, a realist, Pierre Auguste Renoir, an impressionist, Edward Munch, an expressionist, and Rij Rousseau, a cubist, inform me separately and entirely about women. These artists, and specific movements they represent, were chosen as a result of underlying distinction in both perceiving the truth and expressing it. They symbolize varied approaches that may allow to present imperfections in each view and pull moderate final result, which falls into the thesis of the investigation.
The painting The Milkmaid, by Vermeer, shows a female located in a kitchen, setting up a meal. Her face is relaxed and it can be judged from her clothes and this content of the room that she lives in comparative luxury. The painting reveals somehow the reality of the 17th century sociable situation in Netherlands gives me a communal and historical fact concerning woman. Additionally, Vermeer's fact about women is that they are the guardians of the homeowners. His view falls into correspondence theory of real truth, which claims that something is true if it corresponds to an undeniable fact. Despite recent XXth century's communal changes regarding woman's position, they have always played a major role in taking care of home. The motion itself is an example of realism that comprises in the mimetic theory of fine art. The concept of mimesis assumes that the goal of the fine art is to duplicate reality. Therefore the challenge arises when analyzing realism- could it be false since it handles imitation, or it is true through paradox of fiction- that the model reveals some regularities of individuals behavior? I believe that by firmly taking from the type her personal identity in exchange for creating a generalized model, Vermeer in truth hinders the non-public truth relating to this woman. He effectively presents the communal order and historical fact, however generalization is usually worried only with average, not with all choices.
The painting Girl with a dog of Renoir presents a female with a puppy sitting down in the grass. The blurry curves are used in order showing motion of the lawn. By looking at the bloom and the reddish shade on a girl it can be judged it is just a late day. Renoir's truth in this painting can be applied only to woman's look in a particular place at a particular time. Also, the painting says something personal about her- that she probably enjoyed spending her time close to the type, since her face expresses pleasure, and that she probably liked watching sunsets. The painting is an ideal example of impressionism. As Childe Hassam once seen: "The real impressionism is realism that so many people do not observe". The key difference, however, between both of these concepts is the fact impressionism tries to confirm that the fact is not really a generalisation, like in realism. Instead, it uncovers the reality about certain things with regards to very specific time and place. Therefore, impressionism also comes into correspondence theory of real truth since Renoir's painting corresponds to a simple fact- girl's look throughout a sunset. However, since impressionists tried to immortalise the glance we must ask ourselves how good truth is that? Pursuing Monet's thoughts I assume that the truth about everything would be hindered in a series of glances. Thus, displaying just one of the uncountable in their number glances provides us only an insignificantly small area of the truth about women on the whole and the girl specifically.
The painting Madonna by Edvard Munch reveals a woman with sunken orbits and slim posture making her appear to be a demon. The foetus in the still left part symbolises fertility and therefore depicts woman as a source of life. Her face expresses experiencing ecstasy and by linking this image with the name of a piece, Madonna, which is the Religious perception of a Holy mother, Munch degraded the worthiness of woman. The designer was a misogynist and his truth is that a female is a way to obtain all fighting, the mother of heresy and the incarnation of natural bad. Expressionists, like Munch, disregarded mimetic approach to arts; instead they wanted to show the world through the prism of their own conception. Thus, the basic idea in this movement had not been to imitate truth (so they were not considering absolutes), but to provide the subjective and very personal viewpoints- just as in the coherence theory of real truth. The theory says that a proposition is true if it fits in with our overall set of beliefs. Although the concept of woman being truly a demon could be true for Munch, for majority of people it would be regarded as extremist and prejudiced view. However, expressionism, due to its fundamental assumptions, speaks more of the painter than of the world. Munch's perception derives from concern with woman that is why it is so narrow. Nevertheless, this narrowness is a deliberate action. Author, as an expressionist, through his works informs me: "That is MY truth, what is yours?"
The painting of Rij-Rousseau will not identify, as the title could advised, the exterior look. In Family portrait she depicted three different body which shows the complexity and diversity of women's aspect. It could be cheerful and warm (orange), or impassive and cold (renewable), and addititionally there is the individual between them, badly visible, brownish- imitating the whole uncertainty and enigma of other woman's embodiments. Rousseau's real truth about girl is concealed in icons: the green face resembles a mask, so the outside look, which means that the blithe person presents the inner character of female. Therefore, the painting represents the very substance of the cubist theory of truth-to present the thing in the widest context possible by great deal of thought from multiple viewpoints. Quite simply cubism assumes that we are getting nearer to the truth a lot more perspectives we become familiar with. However now again, how good simple truth is that? I now recognize that the absolute real truth about female means summing up all the non-public truths about each girl individually, yet it is an impossible task. Furthermore, any try to pull a mathematically modest view about woman would mean heading back to the very beginning, therefore the ideas of generalization and mimesis. Therefore, what is gained through interacting with arts isn't only learning how great is our own ignorance, but also how unattainable to comprehend, and impossible to depict, the complete the fact is.
What have I gained through interacting with the paintings of Vermeer, Renoir, Munch and Rousseau? The Milkmaid told me what the public status in Netherlands was at XVIIth century. Renoir immortalised some girl's look at the time of a sunset, the thoughts that her face portrayed and the move of the turf around her. Munch explained of his most significant despise and fear of women. Rousseau confirmed never to trust the first impression because a woman is a very complicated being. Therefore, I am wiser with the views of these four paintings, bur now I realize I am poorer with the lack of the perceptions depicted in another thousands paintings. Thus, "I understand that I understand nothing" of the utter truth about female, since I just grasped only an idea of the truth's complexity. When Picasso said that art work is a rest that helps us realise the truth I really believe he didn't suggest any specific style, i. e. he didn't imply that realism is a lay, but that the achievements in arts, in all styles and assumptions, are just not complete. Having at heart that Picasso actually created cubism, I can't resist evaluating his claim with regards to cubist theory of truth. According to this idea the absolute the fact is a mosaic made up of various elements - specific approaches. Quite simply, what Picasso intended is that arts is closed in specific boundaries of different styles and cannot present the whole picture, therefore is a rest. However, as new varieties and concepts are created the more perspectives are added and, part by piece, the mosaic is being completed.