If it is in print it must be fact. Is this the case? I have read things in the past and in the future that turn out not to be true. People write things that are not true to sell a story or, as Marlon Brando referred to it, "to hock a story like a tube of toothpaste". The desire to sell, I feel, stamps on people's ability to tell the truth.

It has been in my mind for some time now that artists have some sort of duty to tell it like it is - but do they? This cannot be their core reason for being an artist. They have a personal life that affects them and that must manifest itself in their work (besides their training as an artist). But they are also affected by the world around them, society and the bigger issues that change the superstructural aspects of the countries that they live in.

I think some artists observe life and are able to interpret it in a way that people perhaps have not seen before until that point, or they are forced to think about something in a new way when looking at the artist's work. So, by that, when lots of people share the same sentiment about a work of art, it could be uncovering something true or something to believe in. Similarly, if the work goes unnoticed until long after the death of the artist it may be that the work was ahead of its time.