Another way of looking at the informative value of art is to think about the message that an artwork portrays, and how this can help us to illuminate our lives. Artwork could be seen as 'giving us a lesson in being human'. The thing that an artwork shows may not necessarily be the objects on display, but the attitudes or vision behind those objects. They may be a hidden message or simply something that allows us to perceive something in a new way. As an example, we don't necessarily value the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1503–1519) because it portrays a particular woman accurately, but rather because it gives us and illuminates our idea about women in general. This also bypasses Plato's objections that art is strictly about imitation – perhaps gifted artists with the right vision may have direct access to the 'Forms'.
However – it can be questioned whether all arts are equally concerned with representing and informing us, with instrumental music being a particular difficulty to explain for representationalists. How could it be that a piece of music with no lyrics or vocalisation could be seen as imitating or illuminating the world? On the other hand, it could be argued that some instrumental pieces imitate sounds from the world (birdsong as an example), and in general there is no object in the world that music particularly illuminates. Also, in the case of illumination – it can be difficult to support the idea art stands for reality. As an example, Picasso's Guernica can be seen as a 'realistic' depiction of the horrors of war even though it looks nothing like real life. There doesn't seem to be a connection made with 'reality' yet it still seems to imitate the world. As well as this, the idea of 'truth' has multiple different meanings that it can even be questioned whether truth (representation/imitation) is a useful value by which to judge as a piece of art – as 'truth' has so many meanings, it could be said all artwork tells the truth in some way.
Further critique has also been made of the representationalism theory – even if art informs us, is that really why we value it? It could be said our reaction to artwork is more emotional than the theory allows. Abstract artwork such as Henri Matisse's 'The Yellow Curtain' (1915) does not seem to have a particular message but we still value it as it gives us a feeling – the same could also be said for (instrumental) music, so perhaps some genres are more informative than others. This theory also suggests that if all we value is the information, then the artwork itself is irrelevant/unnecessary and as we know this does not seem to be the case. Plato criticises art by saying that it actively lies to us – and that it cannot be informative by definition because it distracts us from the truth (in his case the 'Forms). Is art really meant to trick us, and is this what we actually value when we say we like a picture? We could just like the colours or style used. There is certainly a problem with the issue of art 'informing us'; what makes art so good at doing this? If all we are genuinely interested in is the information provided then why do we not simply do something more informative like watching a documentary or reading a book? They seem less prone to misinterpretation, however it could be argued that art can reach a deeper truth within us that a documentary or book may not provide as all they provide is solid information, and do not leave room for personal interpretation.
The claim that we value art because it is informative is not very convincing at all – it doesn't seem credible that the only reason we value art is for it's informative and illuminable aspects as it suggests the artwork itself is irrelevant and unnecessary as it is the information within it we value, which according to how we act in the real world doesn't make sense. Some arts simply do not inform or illuminate, and it can also be difficult to express how some art even stands for reality. It is problematic to assume our only reason for appreciating art is because it informs us, as some art does not even inform us at all (such as abstract minimalistic art) however on the other hand it is plausible that we value art for its emotional impact upon us and the way it makes us feel. Assuming the information is all we value makes the artwork itself completely irrelevant and if this is so, why would we not watch a documentary or read a book which would provide a lot more information than looking at a painting or listening to a song? Other theories provide stronger arguments as to our underlying reasons for truly valuing art.
