This is what I don't understand. As a young student studying the arts, I believe that truthful representation is one of the elements that make up good art but what is the difference between a painting of a knight slaying a dragon and one of farmers doing their daily work? Where is the truth in the former assuming that both were done with masterful technique? I'm not saying that there's no truth in imaginative paintings, I just can't see it. Is there?
In your painting of a dragon slayer, the truth is in what it says about humanity (are we helpless in the face of evil or not?), about courage (will courage lead to victory or is it all just a fašade covering insecurity and accomplishing nothing?), about the proper relationship between good and evil (should we just ignore it and hope it goes away or fight back with all out might?), about evil (is it potent or weak? real or just a fairy tale?), and a hundred other similar kinds of things. Such a painting can express a whole lot of different truths despite having been created in part from imaginary origins.