I dont want to step in and ruin Polemarchus’ gradual build up but the reason I asked is because I was worried that by “internal truth” (a nonsense phrase) you meant “subjective truth”, which you have confirmed. This is relativism… are you really wanting to defend relativism?
That’s why I was nitty about this point, and I strongly object to the suggestion that I was the one being difficult! 
Maybe I should jump in here, too. My own conception of “truth” here pertained only to the internal conception of the artist, and not to anyone to whom the art is communicated. The truth is never objectified, but that’s not relativism - there is no conception of “otherness” at all. It’s just a very limited paradigm, for a specific activity.
Just been wanting to say that.
Not that anyone seems to care.
Poor me.
But that’s not really truth, is it? That’s intention, or at a stretch “meaning”. But truth? It’s not an applicable term.
I think it’s important to note that, as faust said, calling it art depends on the artist’s conception and intent; the truth that he sees from his work. We’ve been talking about an observer judging the art, which isn’t the most important aspect, just an accessible discussion point.
Obw, I am ready to defend the idea that we have beliefs and feelings that are only true in application to our identity, as well as the idea that we only intepret based on our experience or what we already know, and that anything we hold as true is relative to that perspective. I’m not sure precisely what this means in direct relation to creative art though. My use of “internal” was describing the location of the truth’s relevence, which is inside a person; to the individual it is a feeling or idea they hold as true. I’m not sure how something can mean something to a person without them tying it to something they think is a truth.
Obw - I am not sure that anything I can say will stretch the meaning of that word any further than it has already been stretched. But I have used something like “intent” or “meaning” as the only meaningful usage of that word. I wrote that within the context of my entire thought, which, as I admitted, I do not expect anyone to know. It’s a perspectivist rendering that I meant.
Sometimes, it’s difficult to include the entire context of a word usage in a short post. I admit I would have been more clear to have used a different formulation. I wasn’t trying to cause any confusion. But it’s true (if I may use that word) that most of my original posts are ignored or met with questions about single word usages, for the most part.
Surely it can be said another way. I’ll try to do better in future. Frustrates me that I can’t seem to.
Truth is only measured by the power of those metaphors which seek to express it. Truth is one of our most malleable concepts because it also speaks relative to our ignorance as much as to what we know or what we think we know. At any point in time it becomes the state of the art of ‘our’ sensibilities in all the formats we experience. Would a God need truth? For such an entity what else is there? For us and creatures like us Truth is a verb continuously expounded and hopefully refined, possessed of history and genealogy; not a fixed noun of one meaning rendering some kind of absolute.
…there is nothing new in this and that’s the truth!