Answer: It’s a provocative question that quickly necessitates defining the boundaries of what does and does not constitute art. This mirrors the complexity of engaging in the ongoing definition of art. Art is studied because it's among the highest expressions of culture, embodying its ideals and aspirations, challenging its assumptions and beliefs, and creating new visions and possibilities for it to pursue. When we discuss contemporary art, we are typically referring to the practice of fine art, but prior to the Renaissance art was defined within the realm of functional crafts, such as goldsmithing. The idea of autonomous art, or art for art’s sake, developed later, over many eras. Studying art leads to a greater understanding of our own cultural values and of the culture that produced it. When colonizing forces of Europeans encountered African wood sculptural nkisi figures, primarily in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they considered them to be evidence of idolatry and witchcraft or opposition to the colonizing forces. The figures were often pierced with nails as a symbolic gesture to initiate a desired goal, like protection from an enemy. The invading Europeans often destroyed the nkisi figures, which were sacred objects to the Congo people.
Hmm, positive you can put joy and someone sitting down looking relaxed and smiling with friends near them, and for negative you can do like someone being mad and people looking at him sad
