Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: artsednet-digest V2 #1464

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
KP RS (KPRS)
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 07:06:10 -0400


Since I am the one that said that, what I mean is this: the artist will never
be able to make the thing (if that is what truth is), i.e. make war in a
painting, but will able only to interpret what he thinks war is, or the
consequences of war in the case of Picasso. While the painting speaks
volumes, it doesn't completely tell the "truth"....(semantics I know...but
face it, that is what this string is about)...War for example in it's totality
starts with a point, when, where, etc, has definite sides (which by the way
all pray to their G*d for victory and guidance), has casualties both military
and civilian, has armament, generals,,,etc, I think you see where I am going
here. So, if the initial question was "Can artists tell the truth with their
art?" I think the answer is no. Only shades of personal 'truth'.

San D

marcia m eaton wrote:

> I'm intrigued by the claim that "art by its nature cannot tell the
> 'truth'". What does this mean? Did Picasso's Guernica say something true
> about the consequences of war? Marcia Eaton