In what sense is "Beauty [of art] is truth" a true statement?

In what sense is "Beauty [of art] is truth" not a true statement?

The statement is true because if a work of art aims at beauty and achieves that beauty, it is true to itself in its own world and therefore true in its own terms. It is false because the world of art is not the world we live in. Art is a thing apart.

Explanation:

The announcement is genuinely provided that a gem focuses on the magnificence and accomplishes that excellence, it is consistent with itself in its reality and consequently valid in its terms. The sentimental people saw Beauty as definitive truth. They even accepted that being lovely is similarly or more significant than being insightful. It is false because the universe of craftsmanship isn't the world we live in. The workmanship is a thing separated. For urn's situation, the magnificence is solidified, therefore godlike. In any case, this lasting magnificence has been followed through on with the cost of being solidified, that is, dead. This carries us to the subject of workmanship "slaughtering" what it deifies Generally, the Romantics commend life in its different structures, so being dead can't be so valid.

Delegates: representatives who cast votes at a political party's national convention. binding: if a primary or caucus is “binding” that means the delegates won in that contest are legally bound to vote for a particular candidate at the parties national convention.a primary is a preliminary election used to determine a party's nominee for a specific office. the winner of the party's caucus, or primary, wins the party nomination for that state. then the delegates meet at their party's national party convention, which is a formal gathering of all party delegates from all states.