Many philosophers have addressed the question, "What is art?" or also, "What is beautiful?" These sorts of questions are in the field of aesthetics -- an attempt to consider what is pleasing to the senses and emotions and why. It is often said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ... but leaving it at that means that there are no standards whatsoever for what someone can call beautiful or artistic. The philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that only people who have experienced the highest forms of art & culture as well as common or low forms of art or culture are in a position to judge what is truly "the best" in art (or music, etc). Think of it this way: If all you ever looked at were paintings of Elvis on black velvet or paintings of dogs playing poker, you might think that's great art. But if you experience more intricate, more complex forms of art -- or, for that matter, more aesthetically original pieces like Jackson Pollock drip paintings -- you may come to have a heightened appreciation of what counts as "artistic."
Other philosophers, like Immanuel Kant, would point to some sort of universal standards we all recognize in regard to beauty. Such standards will be in line with ethical values we have. So, for instance, if someone makes a snuff film (recording an actual murder), it wouldn't matter how well done the cinematography is. We would find such so-called "art" evil and offensive.
So yes, there's a wide range of possibilities and appeals for art and the emotions that it evokes, and yet there can be some measure of "goodness" that we can feel when we experience good art.
Answer:
Seurat believed colors looked stronger when used along with their complementary color. ... But instead of moving the image, he used many dots of pure color. The dots are too small to tell apart from afar. Georges Seurat (1859-1891), The Circus, 1890-91.
Answer:
they want it to have a message
Explanation:
Because it gives the work of meaning
