Globatron’s Art Laws #10 – There is no truth in art

Posted by on Apr 28, 2009 in Laws

Coming from a place of playful searching and now in retrospect accepting my ignorance in that search, I must say I have learned a lot from the Art Laws project. And as far as laws go I’ve always tried to break them in the practice of art. I think we all have. That is in the nature of being an artist. One painting professor told me to never use black. I asked him why and he said, “just because”. So I have used a ton of black ever since.

But with that said I do believe in the wisdom of the majority. Democracies would have not been founded without some sort of consensus on laws or major legal documents. Throughout this entire process Akbar and myself have argued that it is possible to seek truth through one’s art. That it is not a futile endeavor. Now I personally believe that is possible and can seek such truths in my own artwork, but I will concede to the majority and write this law. There is no truth in art. Everything is relative.

What say you?



  1. why
    April 28, 2009

    there is no right
    there is no wrong
    there is only
    popular opinion

  2. globatron
    April 28, 2009

    I guess I’d have to agree with you. Thanks for your input.

    You know how the History Channel has all of those Biblical shows? They had one on the other night about the history of Hell in the bible. It’s rather interesting. Seems Hell and the Devil didn’t crop in to the bible till the middle ages.

    They had an interesting question that I think relates to the concept of their being no right or no wrong which was this, “If there is no Hell where does Hitler go?”

    I was quite stumped on this one as I’m not an big believer in the afterlife but one passing on as energy alone. So where does Hitler’s energy go? That’s some evil energy I want no where close to my energy.

    I mean it seems if their is also a consensus on there being an afterlife as 90 percent of all mankind believes there is something after we pass away. So if that’s true where does Hitler go or how about Jeffrey Dahmer?

    The next rule should be there is no religion in art as every time I’ve asked these types of questions there is little or no input.

    I have begun to think this site is no longer read by anyone. Thanks for the comment Why. I really enjoyed all the dialogue while it lasted though. It’s a shame it was all over an art project and Akbar and I crossing some sort of invisible moral/ethical line. Especially when it’s all relative.

    I’ll keep Globatron alive if only for myself. Viva la Globatron.

  3. Akbar Lightning
    April 28, 2009

    This law could be read a few ways. one, it could be read as social commentary, as an artist proclaiming that art has lost its hold on ‘the truth.’ and i would support that, it’s kind of like a temporary law, but it could be saying that art is dead, in the same way that Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead. Hey, maybe we are dead.

    There is value in destroying something one idolizes, if only to start fresh, but this is a temporary thing, and best if one is cognizant of such a move.

    Another way to read this is more universal, like ‘there has never been anything ‘of truth’ in art’, that all art is a distraction from being. and of course, this has its sting as well. what are we, artists? but flowers on an empire’s excess. court jesters, entertaining the elite. this too has its important message.

    another way to read this is ‘art is a great vehicle for truth but nobody is willing to put it in there’, she’s a hot seductive mistress, but nobody is willing to impregnate her with life, because we are afraid of her feminine powers, the emptiness of creation.

    there are 2 ways to look at what i’ve written. one, because these all seem true, they contradict one another, and therefore, there is no truth. and two, the presence of so many perspectives deriving from the Globatron law, reveal that there is something deeply truthful in it.


  4. why
    April 28, 2009


    laws shmaws… I can’t see how we can expect to know anything based on our limited perspectives

    i guess its the best we have, but for us going around declaring laws based on our myopic observations is arrogant at best… and who knows what at worst.

    In the afterlife, you are dead. Everything you are now you aren’t. Nobody knows, nobody is ever going to know… no point in postulating. Unless you are afraid or bored… or both if that is possible.

  5. Akbar Lightning
    April 28, 2009

    yo why, it is one thing to look for truth. it is another thing to be frightened by scientific inquiry, which is the hallmark of human history, that aspect of human curiosity that leads us to discover things once thought impossible.

    although we are limited, beings that are finite, we do have great potential, potential that cannot be discovered if we are unwilling to find our limits.

    your comment lacks consistency, as it states things declaratively at the same time as it argues against knowledge. Postulating is the activity of the intellectual. avoiding postulation is the activity of the ignorant.

    i am afraid, that is a human condition.
    and i am sometimes bored, and yes, engaging in creative dialogue does calm those things a bit.

    it is arrogant to assume that which one has not discovered, that assumption comes from other worse forms of sadness and bitterness. it takes great humility to look for the good in this world, to reach out and declare a desire for it.


  6. why
    April 28, 2009

    Do i contradict myself, very well then i contradict myself… I am vast… I contain multitudes

    good is subjective… what is good for you is poison for others

  7. globatron
    April 28, 2009

    Why, You have supported this law succinctly. It’s all pointless. I get it. Thanks for your input and it seems to be the consensus.

    If it’s all so pointless why do we make art then?

    If there is no point in postulating about the afterlife how come 90 percent of the human population has a belief system in the afterlife?

    I think we are all afraid and bored at times. Along with a hundred other human emotions. I don’t see how that has anything to do with asking the questions?

    The Laws were never declaring anything, they have always been an attempt to ask questions. Sorry they were never seen that way. This has made me think of a possible last law. Art has no laws. But is that not a law?

    See the conundrum there Why?

    Beautiful interpretations Akbar. Seemingly Zen in your contradictions. As I have stated before the truth is not in the answer but in the question. We will never get the answers Why. You are correct. But to not ask them seems like giving up to me. Should we give up? Is that the consensus of the art laws project?

    And if we give up then what? What is art/life if it is all pointless?

  8. why
    April 29, 2009

    indeed… supposedly the laws of conservation of matter and energy apply, i would imagine… energy & matter cannot be created or destroyed, so all the pieces of you will incorporate themselves into many other organisms just as they did before they were you

    conservation of consciousness? well, i suppose that is the great debate.

  9. Akbar Lightning
    April 29, 2009

    my position on this debate, is that it is a debate, and we are debating, but debating is a debatable activity, to me, to debate about it is debatable.

    i would like to debate the debate you people are having because some people would debate the value of it, finding it a debatable issue.

    clouds above the ground.


  10. globatron
    November 27, 2009

    I never interjected sacred geometry into this discussion and how the use of it and the golden ratio has been around since the beginning of art and architecture and how artists use it in their work without even aware of it. It would seem the golden ratio is one of the reasons we are drawn to artworks and how we subconsciously categorize works as a group as beautiful.

    There would seem to be some underlying historical truth to that.


Leave a Reply