View Single Post
  #63  
Old 07-07-2006, 07:19 PM
JasonGillespie's Avatar
JasonGillespie JasonGillespie is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 429
Re: Is bodycasting really art?

Quote:
We seem to be in a debate as to what is art and what is not.........
For the purpose of this thread it isn't necessary to debate such a universal question. (Though the above question/debate may control our responses)
In the context of a figurative tradition that spans many millenia and many continents it is, I think, only needful to question whether or not 'art' (figurative)that is created through non-artistic means(body casting) can be given the same degree of credibility as 'art'(figurative) made by a skilled artisan using artistic means(sculpting).


Since body casting has no connection to non-objective art it can't be considered by non-objective standards. It must be viewed and scrutinized through the lense that all figurative art is seen. It seems that this distinction may be a stumbling block for some. There is a prevailing body of thought that sees ART as a hodge podge where all things are equal, the same and no lines of demarcation are drawn..... but that isn't applicable here. (Here I sense a storm approaching and its name may be... 'what is figurative art?')

Be that as it may...figurative art....by its nature.....has critera that governs it that non-objective does not have. Body casting, in my opinion, violates that criteria by circumventing the purpose behind the act of creating an artwork that resembles a human form. Body casting is a copy, a three dimensional xerox and is as close to a sculpture in its nature as a color copy of the Mona Lisa is in its nature to the original painting in the Louvre. Though some disagree, it is a clear cut case of apples and oranges.

Now, I will heartily agree that the question/topic quoted at the top of this post and those who answer it with a non-specific 'anything or everything' are the ones who make body casting acceptable at all. Perhaps in that light the question of 'what is art' might be turned inside out and prove useful by remaking it into, 'why is everything art or why can anything be art?'. Then perhaps the distinction I speak of in the preceding paragraph might grow more clear for some as they try to defend...logically....what is ultimately an illogical view point.
Reply With Quote