I agree with Laura that Schwartz really prompted me to question the notion that the only reality we should strive to achieve is the objective one.  It's not the objective reality that shapes how I see the world, it's my own version of reality--how I have experienced the world up to this point.  I do, however, buy that pictures play a big part in shaping how we see the world.  While Picasso's painting may not present Gertrude Stein in a objective way, the painting still affects how I would compare someone to Stein, how I would view Stein, what characteristics of Stein's would stand out the most to me now.  I see very clearly how, although it is not an objective representation of Stein, the painting affects how I see some aspects of the world.  

The one lingering question I had was how a painting or a picture of something that is not a portrait can change my view of the world.  Would the same logic apply to a landscape painting?  The painter still chooses which attributes of the landscape they wish to highlight and in turn which aspects of the painting I'm supposed to view.  But, does this change how I would view such landscapes?  Perhaps I would begin to look at the trees instead of focusing on the river.  But, I do not see a real connection to my view of the world from such a painting.  And what about more abstract art?

I suppose the bigger point of the article was that we create meaning using words and, specifically in this case pictures.  Without highlighting what we believe to be significant characteristics or assigning a word to an object, there would be no meaning and in turn no truth.  I feel like Schwartz is trying to convince me that through pictures, artists are highlighting what they believe to have the most meaning and that in turn affects what I see as having the most meaning through the means of comparison.