“Picasso was the gateway to true modern art. His painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is considered the birth of modern art, which influenced many of the other great modern painters. Art doesn't need to be perfectly and accurately represented images to be beautiful; art is intended to invoke a mood to the viewer.” Do you agree with the author regarding Picasso, the painting, and the definition of art? Why or why not?

Some art is intended to invoke the mood of the viewers and others are just for memorials of a person place or thing in that time.

Please tell me if I'm wrong, or if this is irrelevant.

If you need another answer.

Yeah, I agree.

Explanation:

The main idea behind the European movements such as Cubism, Surrealism, Impressionism and all of these cultural expressions is that they were trying to create another point of view about art. Until that moment, art was something related to beauty. But what kind of beauty? According to the philosopher Immanuel Kant, something beautiful is something that is universally accepted as it. So, the academic paintings were following this statement, and couldn't diverge from it. However, when the European vanguards begin to broke this established rule, they were trying to show that art is a personal thing. You bring something to the painting, and the painting left something in you. It is an exchange of feelings. The idea of beauty cannot be described by philosophical terms, that's what those painters were trying to say.