As the days go on, there is conflict between the artist and the audience, as they do not believe him honest in claiming not to have eaten. By searching for the audience's approval, a symbol for spiritual nourishment, he loses both material and spiritual nourishment. The climax of the story occurs when he finally achieves his final goal which he believes will give him ultimate satisfaction: a fast until death. As Kafka so grotesquely illustrates, the frail and bony man believes he will finally receive the nourishment he wants when he has fasted until death, at which point he has lost all nourishment and dies. The conflict between the audience and the artist adds to the artist's dissatisfaction with his nourishment. The audience viewing the artist feeds upon the belief the artist is cheating. They continually view the artist only wishing to find him cheating. They express conceit at being confident he is cheating yet no
is false, I cannot meaningfully say that it is. And neither can anyone else. Even if instead we loosen our notion of "observation" and include what Hempel (1950) called the "directly observable characteristics" of ordinary objects, it remains true that verificationism collapses a sentence's meaning into the type of observational evidence we can have for that sentence, without remainder. For example, we are driven to a grotesquely revisionist view about scientific objects--the instrumentalist view that scientific statements about electrons, memory traces, other galaxies, and the like are merely abbrevia- tions of complex sets of statements about our own laboratory data. What is the verification condition of a sentence about an electron? Of course it is something macroscopic, something about meter readings or vapor trails in a cloud chamber or scattering patterns on a cathode ray tube or something of the sort
annaabi.ee 
