Which isn’t to say that art does not require shape, or form, in order that its truth be revealed, for that is precisely what it requires, as art’s relationship to truth is not as forthright as, say, that of nature’s, which is more like an equivalency. By which I mean that nature almost is truth, insofar as nothing in nature is a metaphor (at least not primarily) but is exactly and only that which its parameters indicate it to be; so that as soon as a natural object is apprehended by the senses, it can be grasped by the mind. Whereas art, while belonging materially to nature, is possessed of an intention that transcends the materials of which it is composed. So that while one might say that a novel is made of paper and ink and glue, and be correct according to a natural definition, one would need to say something more in order to express its definition as a work of art.