Karl's Point on Seurat

The short-lived artist Seurat seems to be most well-known for his style of drawing, Pointillism, which consists of drawing entirely with point-like strokes instead of actual lines.

Looking at his works and their significance, however, it seems like the use of Pointillism isn't that significant at all. Really, what difference does it make? From far away, boundaries of conflicted dots look like lines anyway. The dots simply melt away into solid color. What really matters is the reason why Seurat used Pointillism.

Seurat is quoted to have said, "They [writers and critics] see poetry in what I do. [...] I apply my method and that is all" (Eisenman 281). This is a vital point when looking at Seurat. Everything he applies: color, proportion, Pointillism, etc. are all just parts of his "method". He does not build meaning into his works. Take for example his work Chahut. There are erotic dancers on stage all lifting their legs up high while smiling. Other elements of the work including the conductor and the flutist are oriented in the same way as the legs. In general, it tends to elicit happiness and freedom. However, in the end this is just a choreographed sexual display, and there is nothing glamorous about it. The meaning in the art was completely ignored by Seurat, who simply sought to follow his formula.

It is not that Seurat's works have no meaning, it is just that he does not have any rigid interpretation of his own works. He expresses himself through his fixed rules, and for what reason he did this I do not totally understand. Yet, it was definitely different from the art that preceded his.