weaknesses of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths

Intro: there are many different levels of truths, varying in profundity.
Most art, but not all, contains at least one of them.
Weakness 1: propaganda
Art can be used to persuade us to adopt particular viewpoints
Eg Michelangelo’s David was used by the Medicis to make them appear strong and powerful.
Weakness 2: Oscar Wilde
He believed that art should not be about truth, but about artifice.
Art is more important than truth.
Artists shouldn’t see or depict the world as it really is.

or

The first weakness is art can be used to persuade us to adapt a particular view point which would vary from person to person, therefore making the piece of art’s value differ. An illustration is Michelangelo’s David as when Michelangelo chose to create the sculpture he decided to represent David contemplating the battle of Goliath yet to come. However the sculpture came to symbolise the defence from more powerful rival states and the hegemony of the Medici in the Florentine Republic. This portrays that although the renaissance sculpture was originally meant to represent David, in truth it informs us on the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florence Republic. It is this propaganda created by the Medici family which proves that the value of art is not determined by informing us.

A second problem is through seeking truths in art it eradicates art qua art. It gives art a job and makes it instrumental by means of teaching us anything about truth, when art doesn’t have to. After looking at ‘The Ambassadors’ by Holbein people can describe it as valuable because of the levels of truth it contains, ranging in profundity. It contains representative truth through the painting portraying what a 16th century Cleric and Merchant looked like; their type of clothing and fabric for example. It contains universal truth which tells us something transcendent or metaphysical which increases in profundity through trying to set up a dichotomy or contrast between trade and religion. In addition, increasing in profundity, it includes epiphanic truth which accesses the divine truth of the painting. This truth is present in the anamorphic skull at the bottom. However through giving a piece of art a job of containing truths we demine art.

or

Name: Much art is not representational
Explain: Some art just doesnt represent anything
Illustrate: Lots of art doesnt appear to convey truth a good example of this is Matisses 'the snai' as it does not appear to have any truth in it as it is just an assortment of brightly coloured shapes. This painting has form which gives it value but it has no truth, this shows that truth is not where the value of art lies but it is in fact form.
Link:If some art does not have truth in it then how can the value of art lie in its ability to express truths, as this would make lots of art valueless. So the value of art must lie somewhere else for example in form or emotions

Name: Propaganda
Explain: The truth in art can often be propaganda trying to convince you of something
Illustrate: A good example of this is Michelangelo's David, he was commisioned to build it by the Medici Family, who were the ruling family of florence at the time. When it was completed it was placed on top of the town hall and the truth it came to represent was that the Medici family were very powerful and people should not mess with them.
Link: This truth does not show art has value because it expresses truth, as it is simply trying to convince people to obey the ruling family and to fear them. This also shows art does not have value because it expresses truth, as the truth in art can cause it to have a purpose and the value of art lies in its ability to be art for arts sake.

or

A weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truth is the fact that art can very easily be manipulated to produce the desired effect. This is demonstrated by propaganda, an example of which is Michelangelo’s ‘David’. This piece of art was intended to show Florentine prowess and wealth and to manipulate people’s emotions. This is backed up by Plato’s opinion that art was all smoke and mirrors and by believing it you were “feeding in unhealthy pastures”. Plato’s opinion shows how art can be used to manipulate and deceive. This is a weakness in the truth argument.

Another weakness in the truth argument is that art can become embroiled in its meaning and uses. Many believe that art doesn’t have a purpose and its only function is to be art. This idea is demonstrated by the Latin saying “art qua art” which translates as “art for art’s sake”, this is shown by much modern art, a lot of which is not intended to represent much. Oscar Wilde says that “no artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did he would cease to be an artist” This statement shows how Wilde thought that artists work shouldn’t be interpreted as presenting truth. This is a problem with art and truth.

or

The first weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths is that a lot of art is not representative of anything. If we look at modern art, it appears very abstract and so doesn’t directly show us the truth about anything. For example, “The snail” by Matisse doesn’t look like a real snail and so we can argue that it doesn’t tell us anything about the real world and so it could also be argued that the artwork is not valuable. This is a weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths.

The second weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths is that we are giving art a job. Art is supposed to be art and nothing else. It does not need to tell us anything and be informational, it just needs to be art and we should appreciate it for being art and nothing more. By giving art a job, we are undermining its real value. If we were to go to an art gallery, we shouldn’t go to learn something from art; we should go to appreciate the art as it is. If we wanted to learn something, then we would go to a library. This is a weakness of the idea that art is valuable because it expresses truths.

or

N – A problem with art expressing truth is that it is not necessary; art doesn’t need to show truths it could just be appreciated for its beauty.
E – Art can just be ‘art for art’s sake’, art doesn’t need a job. It doesn’t have a specific role and if it happens to then that wasn’t intentional but you shouldn’t recognise it for this. Oscar Wilde, a scholar of beauty said that art was artifice meaning that it’s not about the real world; it’s artificial and better for it.
I – Art doesn’t have to represent anything. For example where is the truth in Matisse’s – The Snail. It doesn’t physically resemble a snail but it’s still a work of art and beauty.
L – Therefore art doesn’t need to express truth because it shouldn’t be given a role. It doesn’t serve a purpose, especially not telling truths.

N – Having truth in art is bad because it could corrupt the young if we don’t censor art there will be a feeling of unhealthy pasture.
E – Art could portray and represent evil things such as ugliness, meanness, bad character and ill discipline, Plato argued. So the truth in art should be censored because if it wasn’t then people will gain grave psychological damage. Art needs to only be about natural, healthy beauty.
I – For example a painting of a rose or a forest would be acceptable as it is not corrupt art but natural, real art.
L – Truth in art is bad because it could show representation of evil therefore corrupting the young, innocent eyes that look upon it. If they did they would be wrongly influenced and it would affect their education.

strengths of idea that art is valuable because it expresses emotion

N – Art has strength in being valuable because it expresses the sublime through emotion
E – Art is valuable to us in making us feel and express emotion. It can be seen as an escapism, the sublime makes us feel terror but we are not close enough to the danger to feel unsecure. Burke explains this as our need to experience sublime terror but to not feel too threatened so we can feel delight from the source of danger.
I – this type of sublime is displayed in Turners ‘Eruption of Vesuvius’. Experiencing this painting makes us feel very helpless, especially in the mass of smoke and fire; in the very bottom is a tiny figure. To which we can relate to but we don’t feel too threatened because it is not us and we are just visualising someone else’s terror.
L – Art is important to make us feel emotion because it unlocks are desire of experiencing terror but not being in danger.

N – Emotion in art is also cathartic; this is valuable because it refreshes one’s self.
E – We use art to help us release pent up emotion that we didn’t necessarily know we have. Freud revisited this idea of Greek Tragedy which helped the Greeks release their emotion because they saw someone else go through bad things. Freud said that we have ‘a pent up mass of negative emotion that we somehow need to release through art.
I – For instance Munch – The Scream helps us release pent up emotion because we can see and sympathise the pain and emotion she feels.
L - Art is therefore valuable because it helps us release blocked up emotions that we don’t always know we have.

Two problems with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art

Problem 1: the intentional fallacy
It is a mistake to try and figure out what the artist ‘meant’ by a piece of art. However, this is what people tend to do.
The artist also becomes more interesting than the artwork, for example Van Gogh, whose work is made even more popular because people know the story of him cutting off his ear.

Problem 2: Kant.
Believes it is vulgar to have a strong emotional response to art.
We should have a ‘Kantian disinterestedness’- a quiet, calm reflective response to art. Subtle ‘aesthetic pleasure.’
Not heights of emotion, as Burke said.

or

The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is the intentional fallacy. Some post modern thinkers argue that art has a life separate from the artist; it transcends the artist and his context. It has a value of its own, untethered from the author and his intentions. To become overly preoccupied with the emotions of the author it is to commit the intentional fallacy. Indeed Roland Barthes so diminished the importance of the author that he announced the death of the author. For example it doesn’t matter what Shakespeare thought of ‘Hamlet’ as the play has transcended Shakespeare to become entitled in its own right.

The second problem with this idea is that a piece of art is an inanimate object meaning it is unclear if you make psychological ascriptions to art because it’s uncertain whether it is the artist’s feelings or your own feelings that we become knowledgeable about. When we say a painting is sad it’s just a linguistic convention really we mean it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it was sad, it’s logically incoherent.

or
Name: The intentional fallacy
Explain: The intentional fallacy is when we look at a peice of art but instead of having a response to the piece of art as a separate body from its creator, we look at it in how we think the creator wanted us to.
Illustrate: This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art because whose emotions are we ascribing to it? the artists, ours or a bit of both? For example with Rothko's Seagram murals we often lapse into the intentional fallacy, as he killed himself the day they arrived in Britain. So people often think that the dark colours of the murals, give us an insight into his tortured mind. When in fact we would not give the murals this psychological ascription if we did not know the manner of his death.
Link: This is a problem with giving psychological ascriptions to art, because the ascriptions we give vary depending on what we think the artist wanted to show.

Name: Art cannot have emotions
Explain: Art cannot have emotions as it does not have a mind
Illustrate: We often give art psychological ascriptions, however art cannot have emotions so it is strange that we give it psychological ascriptions. If the art cannot have emotions then whose emotions is it that we ascribe to the art? The artists?, the audiences? or a mixture of both? For example with Gericault’s raft of the medusa, the audience know that he was aiming to cause controversy so will ascribe some of this to the art. However they will also know that it was a terrible event so will ascribe some of this to it, and they will ascribe some of their own thoughts to the art as well. This shows that the psychological ascriptions are a conglomeration of emotions.
Link: This is a problem because the ascriptions we give to art, are not our own but are a conglomeration of different emotions.

or

A problem with making psychological ascriptions to art is that it is confusing. We do not attribute the feelings that art makes us feel to the actual painting but rather to the artist. This asks the question of whether it’s the artist’s reel feeling or ours. However we can’t talk about the artist’s feelings.

Another problem with making psychological ascriptions is that we tend to make the artist become the art. This is demonstrated by Rothko’s ‘Seagram Murals’. Rothko’s associations with the paintings and his death add a lot to how we view them. This makes our opinion corrupted since we add new layers of meaning and emotion to the art, which was probably never meant to be added. This is one of the reasons why there is a problem with psychological ascriptions.

or

N – A problem with giving art psychological ascriptions is that we fall into the intentional fallacy, this is where the art becomes more about the artist that the art.
E – We tend not just to look at a piece of art and feel the natural response it provokes within. Sometimes our view of just the art is blocked by the knowledge we may have of the artist. Facts we know of them, their feelings, their possible intentions but this is a problem because we are not just seeing the art as it is or what effect it could have on its own.
I – An artist whose work is very much so associated with him is Rothko. It’s hard not to look at his work without associating it with the circumstances of his death.
L – This means that the art becomes the artist and we lose the effect of the art itself.

or

The first problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we try to judge what an artist ‘really’ meant by an art work i.e. to judge their intentions. We can never know what the artist actually wanted the art to mean and so we end up having false ideas about the art that were never intentional in the first place. If we become overly pre-occupied with the meaning of the art and how this is representative of the artists thoughts or feelings then we begin to become ignorant of the actual art in itself. This is called the intentional fallacy and is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.

The second problem with the idea of making psychological ascriptions to art is that we say unclear things about art. When we look at a painting, we may say that the painting is sad but this is a linguistic convention as an inanimate object such as a canvas cannot physically be sad. What we really mean is that it makes us feel sad or whoever painted it felt sad. By claiming that the art is sad, then we are making a statement that is logically incoherent as it is not obvious what we really mean by this statement. This is a problem with making psychological ascriptions to art.

BEAUTY = FORM = MATHS?

Nature by Numbers from Cristóbal Vila on Vimeo.

Henry Dagg - A True Artist?

Full story here

The Wreck of The Medusa Recreated

link

Whose emotions are we engaging with when we appreciate the emotional content of a work of art?

The Rothko murals at Tate Modern are lovely in their oppression, erotic in their cruelty. These are paintings that seem to exist on the skin inside an eyelid. They are what you imagine might be the last lights, the final flickers of colour that register in a mind closing down. Or at the end of the world. "Apocalyptic wallpaper" was a phrase thrown at Rothko's kind of painting as an insult. It is simply a description; the apocalypse is readable in these paintings like a pattern in wallpaper - abstract, pleasurable horror.

Link

The specification says:Art appears

inseparable from emotion, but whose emotions are

we engaging with when we appreciate the emotional

content of a work of art? (our own or the artists?)

Use the story of Rothko's life and work to attempt to answer this question.

Art as Truth or Emotion ?

Here's the event:

A raft was soon built; it was 20 metres in length and 7 metres in width, and was nicknamed "la Machine" by the crew. On 5 July, a gale developed and the Méduse showed signs of breaking up. Passengers and crew panicked and so the captain decided to immediately evacuate the frigate, with 146 men and one woman boarding the woefully unstable raft, towed by the boats of Méduse. The raft had few supplies and no method of steering or navigation. Much of its deck was under water. Seventeen men decided to stay on theMéduse, and the rest boarded the ship's longboats. The crew of the boats soon realised that towing the raft was impractical. They began to fear being overwhelmed by the desperate survivors on the raft. It was decided to cut the ropes, leaving the raft and its occupants to their fate.. The lifeboats, including the captain and Governor Schmaltz aboard, then sailed away to safety. Some landed immediately on the coast of Africa, most of the survivors making their way overland to Senegal though some died on the way.

On the raft, the situation deteriorated rapidly. Among the provisions were casks of wine instead of water. Fights broke out between the officers and passengers on one hand, and the sailors and soldiers on the other. On the first night adrift, 20 men were killed or committed suicide. Stormy weather threatened, and only the centre of the raft was secure. Dozens died either in fighting to get to the centre, or because they were washed overboard by the waves. Rations dwindled rapidly; by the fourth day there were only 67 left alive on the raft, and some resorted to cannibalism. On the eighth day, the fittest began throwing the weak and wounded overboard until only fifteen men remained, all of whom survived until their rescue on 17 July by Argus, which had accidentally encountered them

(link)

And here's the painting it inspired:


Gericault's 'Raft of The Medusa'

Does the value of the painting lie in it's truthfulness or it's emotional power?

Art is not about truth

“That art is not about TRUTH!!!”

It’s about PROPAGANDA!!!

prop⋅a⋅gan⋅da

–noun

1.	information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2.	the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3.	the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

The Medici family used Michelangelo’s David as a symbol of the victory of a cunning mind over brute strength. The statue stood outside the Town Hall in Florence as if to warn enemies and to show their authority over the Florentines.

Propaganda is when people try to convince you something is true. Michelangelo attempted to do this with his sculpture of David. The sculpture represents the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, a state threatened by other more powerful states and by the domination of the Medici. (A business orientated family with traditions derived from patrons of the arts.)

Art is not about truth it is about more than that, for example it can be about propaganda. This is where art is used by people in power to convince people about things. For example Michelangelo’s David is actually a work of artistic propaganda. It was a statue commissioned by the Medici family to stand outside the Palazzo Della Signoria. The strength and muscle of David symbolises the strength and the hegemony of the Medici family themselves and to show their power among the people of Florence.

ART IS ABOUT ART - NOT ABOUT TRUTH

· Théophile Gautier was the first to adopt the phrase as a slogan. "Art for art's sake"

· "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification — and indeed, was allowed to be morally subversive.

·

· Art qua art… art is art, everything else is everything else.

ART COULD BE BAD FOR YOU

Plato said it could be seen as the youth of Athens 'feeding unhealthy pastures' ... so...ermh.... here's some pictures:

Truth In Art

Think about different levels: (Representation, universal , epiphanic - see link)

Think about propaganda too.

Van Dyck's Triple Portrait of Charles I

link

Primarily, to serve its purpose, this painting must be representative of a physical object (Charles I). Hence, it retains a literal truth. Universally, it is a prime example of the narcissism of Renaissance nobility, and so perhaps says something of Charles’ character. Otherwise, I do not believe there is any other truth, certainly no epiphany. In terms of propaganda, it could be perceived as a means of displaying the King in a sensitive, well-mannered style.

Antony Van Dyck’s triple portrait of Charles I portrays a representational truth, it looks like the thing it is portraying. The portrait shows physical properties of Charles I. This means that the portrait has physical truth in it.

The portrait also has a deeper level of truth to it. There is a purpose to this piece of art, which is to portray King Charles I in a particular way. The portrait shows the sensible more gentle side to monarchy by simply showing what there is with no fanciful colours or background.

Due to the simple yet accurate way this portrait has been created it has a sense of beauty to it. Beauty because of the way it so clearly shows you what it is supposed to be, there are not too many hidden messages to this artwork, and so people can appreciate it for what it is.

Michelangelo's David

Michelangelo’s David – sculpted for the hegemonic Medici family in order to display outside the governmental seat in Florence. Stylistically, it is a cultural combination of Italian Renaissance art, which in this instance is a re-emergence of antiquated Greek art, on the subject of a Jewish religious legend even further back in time.

It is highly unlikely this has a literal representative truth, as the story of David and Goliath is a Biblical legend. Supposedly, it retains a metaphorical truth. This depiction of a calm, reflective David before the battle with Goliath symbolizes the confidence and measured power of the Medici’s Republic of Florence. In this sense, it is more propaganda, as it is used to assert a political statement, not a universal truth or epiphany that holds significant spiritual or transcendental meaning to individuals – though it could be perceived as a testament to the arrogant extravagance of the Medici household.

In this sculpture, there is some representational truth to be found, despite some of the inaccurate proportions. The hands are too big, as is the head, and it is unlikely that the real David looked anything like this interpretation. However, despite these imperfections, it is still a relatively accurate piece of a healthy man. The main truths found in this art are much deeper than the superficial surface. It was commissioned by the Medici family of Florence, and was likely to be a piece of propaganda. It is unsurprising therefore that this sculpture is inaccurate, as propaganda so often is. As it shows the wealth of the family, and the muscular, chiselled torso of David is representational to the strength that the family possessed.

This statue is sculptured by Michelangelo and is suppose to represent King David in the nude. It was inspired by the story of the young shepherd boy who chose to fight a far stronger adversary in order to save his people from invasion. He wore no armour, with a sling as his only weapon. David defeats Goliath using superior skill and courage.

The sculpture is said to represent the King just before his fight with Goliath: thinking about what is to come. It shows him holding the sling-shot in which he killed the giant with over his left shoulder and shows him looking rather tense but confidently ready to approach Goliath. It is said to depict the moment where he thinks about the forth-coming event however, many believe it depicts the moment after the battle where David reflects upon his victory. There can be said to be many truths behind this sculpture in that it represents masculinity and power but also suggests deliberation and deep thought concerning one’s actions. If you are to look in detail at the sculpture, you will notice that the proportions of the body are slightly out of place and do not fully represent the human body in its natural form; the head and hands are both much larger than the body. It had been argued that this is because originally, the statue was suppose to have been place on the top of a church so therefore, when looking at it from a much lower angle, it would have looked normal. There could however, be underlying truths about the artists choice to alter the proportions of the human body. For example, making the hands and head much bigger shows that Man is powerful and clever and suggests that just because you are small in size, does not mean you cannot conquer any ambition you may have. As with the story behind David; the young shepherd boy was much smaller than Goliath but with skill, courage and determination, he managed to come out the ‘bigger’ person and save his people.

In my opinion, i believe the statue looks quite ‘Godly’ in that it shows David looking very comfortable in his own skin and depicts his mental superiority and strength.

How is there truth in this picture?

· On a representational level – this is clearly Michelangelo’s view of David; but on a deeper level, it also represents what Michelangelo himself described as a ‘divine perfection’ in the following quotation:

‘True art is made noble and religious by the mind producing it. ... The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection. ... A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.’ (Michelangelo)

· Could this be an insight into the mind of God – or is this religious piece of work intended to give us an idea of God, of this ‘divine perfection’? Albert Einstein felt that the most important function of art was to awaken and keep alive a religious feeling in those who were receptive to it. Could this be the ‘truth’ in David?

· Epiphanic – designed to give a sense of the noumenal; a religious sense that there is something greater than ourselves out there

Michelangelo’s statue of David from the biblical story David and Goliath does not seem to have any representation to it. There is no physical truth to this piece of art for it is certainly not what we would assume David to look like, especially from the way he is portrayed in the bible itself.

Though it must be said that Italian Michelangelo specifically created this statue in the ancient Greek style which is over 2000 years old and it is from a Jewish legend which is over 3000 years old. This means there is truth to the style of the piece and the way in which Michelangelo wanted it to look, despite not being truthful in the physical representation of David himself.

Even though it looks like something real and is quite obviously something human, it has a strange sense of being something more than just human, something Godlike and powerful. This means that it has an epiphanical truth within it.

T

his sculpture, completed by Michelangelo in 1504, was created by commission of the notorious ‘Medici’ family. The sculpture is pregnant with historical, artistic, and social background.

It denotes to us the story of King David and the giant, Goliath. The sculpture, therefore, contains truth by means of representing an important and powerful story within Christianity. Whether that truth goes any deeper than that, and can tell us anything about ourselves as humans or the world we live in, is another question.

Although the sculpture is powerful even to the point of feeling epiphanic in its religious content and aesthetic beauty, there does not seem to be any equally powerful, profound truths inside the sculpture. Even in terms of the story of King David and Goliath, the sculpture seems inaccurate. David was supposedly at the time just a humble shepherd, even though he is shown as a powerful young man, poised for battle (note the veins bulging in his right hand). Adding to this, the sculpture is even somewhat out of proportion. In terms of truth value, this sculpture seems only to contain rather superficial, traditional and historical truths rather than anything epiphanic.

To add to this, Michelangelo was an Italian, Renaissance artist, depicting a Judeo-Christian tale in an Ancient Greek style. To actually be able to represent the events (whether they happened or not, regardless) would be either a miracle in itself, or sheer fluke. It is a work of imagination and ideology and reflects this, too. Its truth value is therefore lessened in terms of accuracy to the original tale, then, also.

Holbein's "The Ambassadors"

link

link

link

This painting acts as a puzzle. Intentionally, there are subtle objects that are meant to symbolize higher meanings. For instance, the lute with a broken string, a symbol of discord, could be interpreted as a statement of the conflict between the scholarly man on the left and the holy man on the right – with a Lutheran hymnbook between them, this statement could be on the subject of ideological disparity during the Renaissance. Reformed plutocracy and Catholic aristocracy could be embodied here. Also, the anamorphic (whereby it must be viewed at a certain angle or with a special device) skull could also represent a reminder of mortality.

This painting holds many hidden truths. At first glance, it appears merely to be a double portrait of two wealthy ambassadors, and on this level of representational truth it is relatively accurate. However, at the bottom of the painting there is what at first appears to be a strange shape. This can only be deciphered by looking at the painting from a certain angle. This begins to show some of the deeper truths that are hidden in the painting behind the physical surface. This skull could merely be just a reminder of one’s morality, or have a deeper meaning. Personally, I would say that there is very little epiphanic truth in this painting. I don’t feel a sense of deeper meaning in this painting, and find it’s strange objects only puzzling, and not wondrous.

How is there truth in this picture?

· On a very simple representational level, this painting shows two people – Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve. We would feel led to believe that this is an accurate representation of Dinteville and Selve physically.

· Esoteric truths – there is much depth in this painting, and therefore there may be many ‘hidden truths’ – for example, is the mortality of man a hidden meaning in this painting? The smudged skull that can only be seen clearly from below could be representational of this

There is little doubt that there is a certain amount representational truth in this portrait. Both men looked like their portrait, wore those clothes and owned those instruments. Although they have been painted truthfully, it is undoubtedly one side of the truth – the truth wanted to convey by the commissioners of the painting. They have, in every way, been made to look wealthy, powerful and learned.

There is, however, a deeper truth that Holbein had put into this painting. He has filled it with esoteric truths – hidden comments on the times – for example the broken string on the lute symbolises the discord between the church and the crown.

The most obvious symbolism is the anamorphic skull at the bottom of the painting. This is supposed to convey a deeper, universal truth about our own mortality, perhaps that all the wealth, political power and knowledge in the world cannot change the fact we are all going to die.

The ambassadors painting is an esoteric truth, meaning that it is a hidden truth especially to an onlooker who isn’t in the ‘know’. It is designed for people who are particularly understanding to the mysterious meanings of this painting. For example in the very top left hand corner of the painting behind the curtain there is a person, and it looks very much like Jesus when he was nailed to the cross. I think this gives an epiphanic truth of god, showing us that the unknown is there even if we cannot see it with our own eyes. It is also showing that the death of Christ’s son is because of us and there will always be a collective guilt on our shoulders for this act and we should be grateful for Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins us as people committed.

Holbein’s ambassadors is a mysterious painting with many theories surrounding it. There may be truth is the three levels of the painting, Heaven- represented by the astrolabe and other objects on the upper shelf, Living world- which is represented by the books and musical instruments on the lower shelf, Hell- represented by the skewed skull at the bottom of the painting.

Truth can be found in the skull, in that it is a reminder of mortality to great men such as the ambassadors pictured. It may be skewed to give the impression that death is not always obvious but is lurking in the background of our lives. The objects can all be linked together in different ways. One way we can find truth is through linking the skull, scientific instruments and clergymen.

This could be interpreted as the decline of importance in the medieval churches ideology, being slowly replaced by science. On a different note the scientific instruments and clergyman could be combined to show the new emphasis placed on looking for answers to our world, also looking towards the heavens for god and more knowledge.