Jeanette Winterson, "Art and Lies"

Describe the two key terms in this title:

I've heard this argument previously: art is a lie told to reveal truth. A painting, for example, is not a completely-true representation of its subject. It is influenced by the artist's mind, style, eye sight, and methods. Further, one person's point of view of a single object, even the same object, can vary widely from another person's point of view of that object. In view of this, isn't art a kind of methodical, thought-out lie? Than again, no one looks at the apples in a Cezanne still life thinking those apples are up for eating - it's obvious the apples are part of a two-dimensional representation of apples using paint. Also, the painting was not intended to deceive people - it was meant to represent the subject and whatever meaning the artist endowed it with. Is it a lie if the art being questioned does not try to be anything other than what it is?

Strictly, in terms of representing apples that are not real, physical, bite-into-and-eat-them apples, the painting above is a lie. That table cloth is not up for sale, you can't eat those apples, and that bottle of wine is available to no one. But Cezanne never started out with that in mind - this is a classic composition, an artistic meditation on space, texture, objects, whether art can be something like an apple on a table cloth, and use of a specific medium. When the intent of the artist matches the product, is it still a lie? To say Yes to that seems horribly shortsighted.

Is it okay to use lies to get to a position where one can create art, then? In Virginia Woolfe's A Room of One's Own, she uses the imaginary existence of Shakespeare's sister to demonstrate how life would have gone for a women with Shakespeare's genius. She theorized that woman's life would end early and very unhappily. This woman would have had to use deception to make opportunities available to her - she would have had to run away, and she would have had to compromise herself and her safety in the attempt. Here, a female Picasso is faced with a similar challenge - that of using her genius to its fullest extent, developing it past the threshold normally left to women. Is it alright for her to go beyond what her family and community thinks is decent and just to achieve the same rights and sphere as a man? - even though she has more than enough talent to do so? A lie looks like a tool, like a paint brush or bucket, when the question is poised this way.