Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

1

Personal Details

Principal Investigator Prof. A. Raghuramaraju Department of Philosophy, University of Hyderabad Paper Coordinator
Principal Investigator
Prof. A. Raghuramaraju
Department of Philosophy,
University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator
Prof. Bijoy H. Boruah
Department of Humanities and Social
Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi
Content Writer
Dr. Arundhati Mukherji
Department of Philosophy, Jadavpur
University, West Bengal
Content Reviewer
Prof. T.K Nizar Ahmed
Former Professor, SSUS, Kalady
Language Editor
Miss Aruna Ramachandran
Freelancer, Manipal
Description Module
Subject name
Philosophy
Paper Name
Art and Aesthetics
Module Name/Title
Art and Knowledge
Module Id
14.3
Prerequisites
None
Objectives
None
Key words
Cognitive, Aesthetics, metaphorical language, poetic truth

2

Art and Knowledge

Introduction

To get engaged in aesthetic object is definitely to get engaged with perceptual and emotional activities, and it is perhaps, cognitive too. As such aesthetic engagement is tied to epistemological concerns. When we observe a play, we say whether that play is good or bad, whether emotions it produced were manipulative or justified and so on. Again people claim that they learn from art, that art changes human being's vision, nature and mind. It is believed that art can provide knowledge about the world. But the question is, what things are essential to know about art? Can art really teach us significantly? Is there any propositional content which art can really provide?

In art to have knowledge does not mean that we have to have a theory. It more refers to a potential

something that emerges in a new way. To have knowledge in art may mean to
something that emerges in a new way. To have knowledge in art may mean to see a problem from
multidimensional perspectives, to match the representational, to see something as unfolding,
expressing, interrelating various kind of meanings, rearranging various elements and giving them
relationships, which are nothing but stroke of insight at any level. Generally art involves with
heightened expression, emotion, creativity, metaphor, meaning, beauty, connection, relationships etc.,
and to understand this is indeed to have some kind of knowledge. It is said that art can act as a means
to some
special kind of knowledge. Art gives insight into the human condition — it relates to science, religion
and even heightens our spirituality, works as a tool of learning or enculturation— it leads human
being towards morality as well.
A discussion in Aesthetics or Philosophy of art that is quite an old one still goes on about whether art

can produce any knowledge or whether it gives any truth or corresponds to reality. Some philosophers say that artworks are valuable only as a source of intellectual enjoyment, i.e., receivers or audiences value the experience of artistic forms as a source of aesthetic emotion. Some other say that artworks

have content, and that viewers can have knowledge by experiencing these artworks by hearing, reading, observing etc. Cognitivists normally support the view that art is a source of knowledge and oppose to them, stands the anti-cognitivists view.

Can artworks denote?

An artwork can denote something metaphorically or aesthetically. Artworks, instead of being literally true of some fictional world, can be aesthetically or metaphorically true of our world. Again an artwork can also express emotion aesthetically or metaphorically. Artworks can be an example of an artist's specific style through similarities to other artworks it can refer. In order to know or

3

understand artworks we must understand the style, symbols or how it relates to other works, and so on. That is, one cannot understand an artwork until one understands these references.

The status of an artwork is measured by referring the problems that it tries to solve, and its success in solving those. Creativity actually consists in the power to solve problems and creating new ones. Thus, like any scientific theory, all artworks are kind of attempts to solve problems. But just as any scientific theory is unable to give any proven truths, so also it is said, that artwork cannot be ever perfect or, it may always unfold itself in newer ways. So one can say that if there is really any knowledge concerning artwork, then that knowledge would remain incomplete in the sense that it may grow on and on continually.

Difference between Scientific use and Emotive use We know that language can be put to
Difference between Scientific use and Emotive use
We know that language can be put to multiple uses. There are three chief uses of language, viz, the
scientific, literary (aesthetic), and everyday. Literary use is the emotive use, which expresses higher
thoughts but abounds in ambiguities. That is, emotive use is full of irrational categories, not
necessarily following the rule of grammar, far from usual reference and yet having meaning. People,
while discussing statements, become obsessed with truth. But the question is, whether every statement
in an ordinary way does aim to be true at all. Lewis says that myth communicates to reality and truth
is always about something. Truth actually is grasped by imagination and this perhaps, applies to every
kind of thought. Aesthetic statements do have semantic content which can be referred to, can be
described at any time — and what is produced by the artist or speaker, though subjective, has an
import, may be sufficiently stable although violating background convention or breaking the
traditional prejudice. There are certain techniques, may be, in

aesthetic use, but they vary in terms of their intentions and aims. Literary language deals much more with expressive element than scientific ones. While scientific language is mostly popular for having universal and objective characteristics. However, the main purpose of the everyday language is to communicate, but this language has much in common with literary language.

According to I.A. Richards, "A statement may be used for the sake of the reference, true or false, which it causes. This is the scientific use of language. But it may also be used for the sake of the effects in emotion and attitude produced by the reference it occasions. This is the emotive use of language.” 1 The scientific use of language deals with the denotative aspect of a language. Here we get almost a one-to-one correspondence between sign (word) and referent. While emotive use of language is dominated by the connotative aspect. Richards points out, that "For scientific language a difference in the references is itself failure : the end has not been achieved. But for emotive language the widest

4

differences in references are of no importance, if the further effects in attitude and emotion are of the required kind." 2

Literary language differs qualitatively from any language, for, literary artists use the resources of language much more imaginatively with higher thoughts than any other human beings. It is said that aesthetic language tightens, organizes well the resources of ordinary everyday language, and often makes an effort to force us into awareness. 3 Aesthetical or metaphorical language via imagination often properly conveys in indispensable manner, insight into

the systems to which they refer. In this way they can generate insights about how things are in reality. Imagination actually is a synthesizing faculty which brings about rearrangement, harmonization and sees the true nature of things. Coleridge says that imagination is a unifying power. Poetry is the blossom of all human knowledge, emotions, human thoughts and language. More significantly he says that "No man was ever yet a great poet, without being at the same time, a profound philosopher." 4

Can we learn from art?
Can we learn from art?

Either we can learn from art or we cannot acquire knowledge that is non-propositional. Those who accept that we can learn from art, they generally say that human being's engagement with art brings a kind of emotion or activity which can produce knowledge, or an artwork may help to produce a greater understanding or awareness of the world. Hence, art definitely can be a source of insight and awareness which cannot be put under propositional knowledge rather, art enables us to observe the world in a new dimension, art gives knowledge or understanding of a novel kind. Hausman rightly points out that some works of art help us to show “extra-aesthetic” human experience or quality, and can do so totally in and through its aesthetic aspect [Carl R.Hausman,”Insights In The Arts”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1986, p.164]. However, According to McAdoo, there is no strict distinction between aesthetic purity and worldly significance, for attributions to an artwork is done both by the use of “aesthetic” and “non-aesthetic” words. Thus aesthetic and non-aesthetic domains are actually merged. Consequently, art and life become not separate domainsrather,

whatever is aesthetic is not discontinuous with our everyday life and language. Hence, both aestheticity and everyday- life activity involve cognitivity [Nick McAdoo, “Can Art Ever Be Just About Itself”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 50.2, Spring, 1992, p-136].

However, those who deny that we can learn from art, try to say that every knowledge is necessarily propositionally-based knowledge. According to Stolnitz (1992) 5 , art primarily cannot contribute to knowledge, for, it fails to generate any truth. This line of thinking denies that we can learn from art, or art can be understood as a source of knowledge, for, it is not productive of knowledge. So, art should be rejected as a source of knowledge, because it is unable to provide true beliefs.

5

About Knowledge

In general knowledge is an awareness or understanding of something "something" may be skills, descriptions, information etc, which one may acquire through learning, experience, perceiving, discovering and so on. Knowledge can refer to both practical and theoretical understanding of a subject or something. It can also be said that there is a reflection theory of knowledge. Marxist aesthetics applied to the Marxist materialist theory of reflection to artistic or aesthetic objects. Here "imitation" is a species of reflection, and a successful artwork reflects the social situation out of which it comes out, including moral life, intentions etc. So, reflection theory would accept that humans give meaning to art.

Further, one can see aesthetic reactions in terms of practical knowledge. By practical knowledge it is meant how to act by extension, and again how to feel that. In another way one may say that practical knowledge includes moral activity and aesthetic appreciation, and so this knowledge gives emphasis on the knowledge of appropriate action or feeling in a given context. It is said that to give a theoretical account is neither necessary nor sufficient for practical knowledge, whether moral or aesthetic. When an artist and viewer shares the practical knowledge in the same way, there arises the basis of communication in the aesthetic domain. One may suggest that education, upbringing in a tradition of expression is what grounds this kind of practical knowledge.

However, knowledge is again taken as "justified true belief" — but "well-justified true belief" is
However, knowledge is again taken as "justified true belief" — but "well-justified true belief" is more
complete. Much complex cognitive processes are involved with knowledge acquisition, e.g.
reasoning, perception etc. The most commonly taken classical definition of knowledge says that in
order to be knowledge, a statement should meet some criteria — that is, it should be justified, true,
believed.

Another authentic kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge. A contribution to how knowledge of the world is acquired has been done by scientific method. A scientific method has techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring novel kind of knowledge or correcting previous knowledge. This method is based on empirical and observable evidence subject to principles of reasoning and experimentation. ["Rules for the study of natural philosophy",

Newton, 1999, pp. 794-6 from the general Scholium which follows Book3. The system of the World].

Commonly people have a propensity to take the classical and scientific ways in order to acquire knowledge of the world. But it is a fact that these ways are not without doubt and can carry us to some big convergence on the truth in general. However, epistemology involved with the study of justified belief tries to deal with the problems like how to understand the concept of justification? How one knows that his beliefs are justified? Beliefs enter into human being's mind for a variety of causes. Among them, emotional needs, superstition, desires and many other biases may be playing as

6

psychological factors. When beliefs like these arise, they are not taken as knowledge even if true. Because it is maintained that true beliefs can make knowledge, and it is necessary that they arise in sources where there are adequate reliable reason. But the point is, things can be radically different from what we take them to be.

However, traditionally propositional knowledge at least has been defined as justified true belief. To make it clear, in order for beliefs to be considered knowledge people had to believe it, again there had to be justification for the belief and lastly belief had to be true. Although this has been challenged, yet normally people try to keep this traditional definition of knowledge in mind while discussing about knowledge. Truth is mostly used to mean being accord with reality or fact, or to a standard, and to understand something as true is as good as having knowledge of it.

Some Views Concerning Art and Knowledge

Plato Plato considers knowledge as "justified true belief." Plato saw art as twice removed from
Plato
Plato considers knowledge as "justified true belief." Plato saw art as twice removed from reality, i.e.,
an imitation of an imitation of reality. Thus poet's words are "three removes from reality, and easy to
produce without knowledge of the truth" 6 (Plato, Republic 10 599a). According to Plato, mere
appearance of anything that is the "yellow chair" of the painter is a mere appearance and that should
be avoided in favour of reality. In this way Plato radically excludes the mimetic artist from his ideal
state. He would say that the painter or an artist attracts us with appearances and tries to confuse image
with reality. This position of Plato obviously will never accept that art can produce knowledge or
truth. But this position has been criticized by many thinkers by admitting that the exposition of
appearances through mimesis or imitation can produce knowledge and can be valuable as well, and so
can help us to lead to reality or external world. Vasari, therefore, rightly says that "painting is simply
the imitation of all the living things of nature with their colours and designs just as they are in nature".
7

Plato points out in Republic (595-601) that artists and thus art mislead their audiences into thinking that knowledge consists in the mimetic object. Plato says that if one is swayed by emotions and imaginations, then he/she, in result, would have to face the consequences of unbalanced soul and defective character. He says that artists write very many things, for example, about courage, beauty and other virtues by not knowing them clearlyit is

only philosopher who tries to intuit the Forms and apply abstract reasoning, can truly have knowledge of these virtues.

7

Aristotle

However, Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, developed the independent character of aesthetic activity

and experience which came to show as a reaction against the views of Plato. Art for both Aristotle and Plato is indeed imitation or mimesis or representation, but that does not imply that art should be removed from the domain of true understanding. It is a fact that human beings are already engaged in recognizing what is represented, and so can recognize which is the source of pleasure in artworks. The fact is, that in representing the actions of humans, poetry or art is able to convey general truths about the world and our condition.

Aristotle regards mostly all arts as essentially mimetic. Mimesis, for him, is an artistic representation in its multiple styles and modes. Moreover, Aristotle, unlike Plato, takes all mimetic activites as productive processes which follow rational principles intrinsically, and enable producer to conceive of the particular artistic forms, (Metaphysics 7.7). 8 However, Aristotle rightly says that indulging in the mimetic emotions or representations that Plato warned us of can actually help or benefit one's conduct by generating an emotional catharsis (Poetics, 144 9b 24 - 29 ). According to Aristotle, by purifying the tragic emotions, one can become more rational in everyday life. It stands now that both Plato and Aristotle

believed that we can learn from art — but Plato argued that here the learning
believed that we can learn from art — but Plato argued that here the learning is detrimental, while
Aristotle argued it was significant, rather beneficial.

One may say that the justification of fiction or imaginative literature lies in the fact that what we call "poetic truth" or "metaphoric truth" is somewhat opposed to what is called "historical" or "metaphysical" truth. Thus, poetry is different from history and regarding this Aristotle says, that history relates what has happened, while poetry relates what may happen. More clearly, according to Aristotle, "poetry is something more philosophical and more elevated than history, since poetry relates more of the universal while history relates particulars," 9 (Aristotle, Poetics, IX, 145 1b, 3,4). What Aristotle means is that works of art can possess a richness of value and significance which invites the larger conceptions that structure human understanding. In art the images actually entail the cognitive and affective parts that structure our experience in general. Aristotle's framework, thus, presupposes that art can be a source of knowledge and truth. To interpret him one may say that art has the power to elicit responses in which the psychological feelings in the shape of experience or knowledge are integrated. For Aristotle, imitation or mimetic representation does not get derailed from knowledge, rather representation of the real thing has a great artistic value.

8

Romantic Era

Plato refuses to accept any relation between art with truth and real knowledge, whereas , Aristotle accepts the cognitive aspect of art. But in the Romantic era the poet Keats says "Beauty is truth, truth beauty that is all" ("Ode on a Grecian Urn", by John Keats). In Romantic era issue related to art shows how art relates to truth and knowledge, or how the elevation of art can be the source of knowledge and truth. Art, in fact corresponds to transcendental truth, which is much higher than what we gather from science and experience. The romantic conception of art is something radical, for, it emphasizes imagination and intuition and creates a different understanding of our known world. In fact, this conception is far away from the empirical conception prevalent at the classical time, with emphasis on reason or experience. Art, therefore, claims for a different approach which is separated from scientific propositions depending on true belief and unable to provide justified knowledge but what art can give is the insights into the world and take account of multiple human worldviews.

Rationalists and Empiricists All through the Renaissance and beyond, philosophers went on with the view
Rationalists and Empiricists
All through the Renaissance and beyond, philosophers went on with the view that human beings can
learn from art, and that any art form is involved with emotions and imagination in a helpful way. But
the rationalists did not support the idea that the imagination could be a source of knowledge and as a
result, they strictly maintained that knowledge involves justified true belief, but this rationalist view is
hard to get in the realm of art.
In the same way empiricist idea also became unhelpful. The empiricists question is, how to gain
justified knowledge from fictional context or entities? For them, it is no way possible to learn actual
things from fictional situations. So, it stands that to both rationalist and empiricist the idea of learning
or obtaining knowledge from art is not helpful or possible.

Contrast to Rationalist and Empiricist epistemology, Romantic epistemology puts emphasis on both imagination and reason. Romantic idea suggests that there may be multiple ways and views to experience and construct the world. Thus, for them, there is no one definite perspective from which Truth can be seen or determined. We have to develop the notion of transcendence in order to extend the dimension of truth and thus knowledge. Romantics would say that natural science describes the physical world from a single point of view but art can describe the world by transcending experience of the so-called physical world into the emotional and supernatural. It is true that art does not record truths of the world in the way that science does but nevertheless art gives insight to understand the world in a peculiar and different way and that too with accuracy.

9

Heidegger

Heidegger calls "truth" in many names. In his Being and Time, he refers truth as "uncoveredness" and "disclosure" in On the Essence of Truth and The Origin of the Work of art, he uses the word "unconcealment". Heidegger moved away from the traditional concept of truth. To him, traditional concept of truth takes truth as assertion, i.e, one can make a judgement about what is

true; again this judgement about truth must correspond rightfully with the things in reality, and this judgement must be subjective. The traditional concept thus stresses on the essence of truth lies in the agreement of the judgement with its object. 10 In brief the standard conception of truth stands "as correspondence of the matter to knowledge". Heidegger claims that before making any judgement about truth, one first must observe the truth as it is it must be uncovered or unconcealed. He talks, therefore, of different concept of truth. 11 To him the essence of truth must not lie in human judgement, rather it must be something eternal. 12

Heidegger’s truth is not a judgement one could make when one says "this is true".
Heidegger’s truth is not a judgement one could make when one says "this is true". Truth, to him, is
rather a fact of Being— it is the way in which things are in their most essential uncovered sense — it
is Dasein's disclosedness, to which the unconcealedness of entities within-the-world belongs. It must
occur before knowledge — truth is the disclosure of the way in which an entity is. 13
Thus Heideggerian truth stands external to judgement. According to him, art is nothing but a word to
which nothing actual corresponds; purpose of the artwork is to act in the uncoveredness of beings.
This is what connects art and truth. More he says that artwork produces truth by "setting up' a world.
Heidegger says in his The Origin of the Work of Art (pp.89, 109, 127) that "all art is in essence
poetry". To him the artwork acts at the uncoveredness of truth — but how does it act or work? It
works by making something public, manifesting something other. The work is a symbol of the subject
it represents — it is a reproduction of the thing's general essence (The Origin of the Work of Art,

P.103).

Gadamer

For Gadamer, experience of art contains a claim to truth which is totally different from science, but not inferior to it. He would say that art is knowledge and to experience a work of art means nothing but sharing in that knowledge. In fact experience of art is a mode of knowledge of unique kind, obviously different from the sensory knowledge which provides science, and different from moral rational knowledge, from all conceptual knowledge as well yet art is knowledge, i.e., conveys truth.

An idea is great in Gadamer's aesthetics and that is the concept of play. A big transformation takes place when play as such becomes a play. It puts the viewer in the place of player. For example, when

10

we watch a drama with a seriousness, the pleasure of the drama is the joy of knowledge of a unique kind. This gives a transformation into structure its total meaning. Transformation means that something is suddenly changed into something else, and this transformation is a transformation into the true. While experiencing art one knows and recognizes something and oneself the joy of recognition is the joy of knowing something more than which was already known. In recognition, therefore, something new emerges and grasped in its essence. 14

What kind of Knowledge is knowledge of art?

The artistic forms, their ways of relating to reality and the meanings of artworks could make us realize that no referentiality of content would help to give right approaches, meanings and knowledge through arts. Art actually transcends its referential content through its forms, consequently aesthetic realization becomes deeper and so does not co-incide with our conventional meaning. Knowledge in aesthetic domain is transferred or transformed. When any artwork offers us some knowledge, then that, as content of artwork, is conveyed directly on the process the artist chooses to express himself /herself.

Knowledge claims about the arts One may say that there are some basic knowledge claims
Knowledge claims about the arts
One may say that there are some basic knowledge claims that can be made about arts. First, what we
know or believe about the aesthetic object. No knowledge of an art object can be taken in terms of
justified true belief (classical sense). There can be infinite interpretations in an art-situation. The
knowledge claims about the art content may not have the same kind of validity.

Another knowledge claim concerns how to understand or judge what kind of response to a particular artwork is more justified. The main point is, we do have an emotional response to art and this shows that there is definitely something in the art element that is worth responding to.

The next knowledge claim about art is, how can we have real knowledge from art which involves fictionalities? However, it is very much accepted that art does provide insight to understand the world, it gives significance to our lives, creates new beliefs and so new knowledge of the world. But the problem is, it becomes somewhat dangerous if we obtain knowledge only from fiction. At the same time it is also a fact that much that we learn from art about the world does come from art, and so claims to knowledge must be taken care of.

However, justified true belief may work in the normal context of a proposition in order to have knowledge. But in the art-situation it does not work at all, yet art holds some legitimate ground. The knowledge provided by art or aesthetic domain may be able to identify what it is about the artwork itself, qua artwork, which gives knowledge. Of course there is something in the art-context which is

11

knowledge-producing. Otherwise why do we go to interpret art and want to make a significant progress? Moreover, the knowledge we have from art has more to do with the relationship between the artwork and its audience. There are, however, more than one way to know or learn, and so to learn through art is a novel way, which is not simply propositional in nature. We can even have moral knowledge, knowledge about our lives and even spiritual knowledge from art.

Some Objections

N. Carroll (2002) goes against the view that art can give knowledge. According to him, the knowledge that we obtain from propositional statements are not really useless as arts. Whatever art speaks of the general truths of life and world are in fact trivial. Again, art does not carry any evidence to make knowledge valid. Moreover, if for argument's sake it is accepted that artworks imply knowledge or truths, yet, it is not seen that the whole aesthetic domain, including artworks, the critical discourse etc. ever engages in debate or argument for defending the domain.

Following Plato many believe that art cannot be a source of knowledge, if traditional sense
Following Plato many believe that art cannot be a source of knowledge, if traditional sense is taken.
Because art cannot deal with propositions of truth-value. Stolnitz as an anti-cognitivist says that even
if art tries to provide knowledge, it is just trivial one. But some modest category anti-cognitivists say
that although whatever knowledge the art may provide is without truth-value or non-propositional,
still this can be a source of insight and awareness. At least art provides a novel kind of relationship to
our mind which is nothing but a deep insight. 15
Some said radically that we do get knowledge through art or literature and this knowledge is
propositional in character — but understanding the statements as part of literary experience need an
analysis of their possible truth and falsity, which is not invited in aesthetic domain. 16

Some again say, that when we talk of propositional knowledge in art, then that is not propositional in a direct way, rather it can be called "modal propositional knowledge", i.e., knowledge of possibility. 17 Thus, artworks form modal conceiving, which help us to see possibilities. That is why Stoke says that

that sustain cognitive interest, are well-suited to provide us with knowledge". 18

"artworks

Knowledge through art is not limited, we can extend our knowledge in aesthetic domain from the usualit is, rather the traditional model of propositional knowledge which really is a restricted one,

and knowing

for, it does not include things like "knowing how to perceive, imagine and feel what a certain experience is like." 19

Reply to the Objections

One must note, that cognitive and aesthetic values in fact, support each other. The cognitive value of an artwork is furthered by its aesthetic value the aesthetic is cognitive from the very beginning. 20

12

Thus, we can say that art is a source of knowledge without being trivial. In art cognitive value does not deal with justified true beliefs, rather effective understanding, aesthetic ideas, infinite procedure of understanding that enhances more thoughts are important in art. To discover meanings in art is to trigger our cognitive power, insight, and thinking. Artwork can teach us how to see, think in newer ways which no other work can. Aesthetic ideas take us to the unexpected horizons with new dimensions, for meaningful adventure.

Conclusion

To conclude it can be said that art as a means to truth or knowledge takes us to see art as a means to the acquisition of truth. Great men say that art is the greatest path to the highest knowledge, and we must take this with a value. Normally propositional knowledge has been much emphasized. By sense- observation we can learn that rain falls from the sky and this counts as knowledge in our ordinary circumstances. However, knowledge in the case of art is not acquired in the same manner. Indeed, we make some propositions by experiencing an artwork e.g. surely literature (artwork) consists of sentences which do convey propositions, i.e., make assertions that are either true or false. Bur some thinkers take the propositions about fiction, myth or non-existent entities as neither true not false. Yet, this fact does not dismiss altogether the value of literature as an artwork. The non-existence of small people and land that has been described by Swift in his Gulliver's Travels no way is less valuable, less significant. Actually the worth and truth of literature can be found in the statements where a worldview is displayed. In appreciating art, audiences do not need to use straightforwardly the "Yes" or "No" statements rather, they look, appreciate and fully involve with the feelings of the worldviews that are there in the artwork. Viewers or audiences try to bring out the meanings or worldviews by different interpretations, but that is not a demerit of an artwork or its creator. Rather, different kinds of interpretations show that an artwork can have infinite possibilities which make the path to see an artwork every time in a novel way. Moreover, infinite possibilities drag us towards new knowledge as well.

possibilities drag us towards new knowledge as well. Therefore, truth is there in the work of

Therefore, truth is there in the work of art and thus in literature, but the truth is not strictly connected to propositions. A character in a drama or novel is taken as true to human nature. Hence, one can very well say that truth in

novel or fiction does not mean truth of the statements, rather, truth to human nature. Art, therefore, cultivates such forms of cognition or knowledge which allows us to realize that there is an alternative way to think, live, to see human nature, worldviews, and to have aesthetic experiences, which is normally different from natural or scientific attitudes.