When you said...
What this forum is doing is discrediting a whole lot of individuals who don't meet their standards of what constitutes art, and this kind of attitude of intolerance is hardly what one expects from an art community.
I think you might have oversimplified the situation.
Art is defineable...it exists distinct from things that aren't art. The whole point in trying to discuss these sort of questions is to come to a better understanding of what art is. That there must be some standard is obvious...otherwise it wouldn't be art.
Now, if you advocate having no
standards so everyone
can be an artist your indictment might have validity, but it won't change the fact that there are some people who just can't create art...try as they might. I am not going to lower the bar so they can become artists. That is like going to college, making bad grades and still wanting a diploma...or asking to be made a doctor without ever having gone to medical school. You must meet some criteria before being considered an artist. It doesn't need to be academic or educational...but it should show in the work itself. In my opinion good intentions are not enough. Every other type of work/job has this same ethic.
As to your comment about intolerance....if you want to make having a standard of ability, having some sort of skill ...in whatever area of art....a case for intolerance, you are going to be stretching the meaning of the word a bit. Your expectation of the art community's tolerance
seems to border on blind acceptance.....and that is something I would never expect from the art community.
The bodycast is a tool.You can turn it in art .But it will cost more time and work .The bodycast is a shadow of complete object.So you have to make degenesis of the shape in order to inplant your art idea.Or use it as a contsept in modern art.
I do think that bodycasting is a tool and your reference about a shadow is a good one. I know some use it only as a tool to construct something that is wholly different from the original casting and the bodycasting is therefore a smaller part of a larger work of art....which no longer resembles the cast. (like Antony Gormley's great conceptual work)
But then there are those who use it as the means by which they create distinctly figurative works...works meant to supplant those modeled by hand....figurative works that they wouldn't otherwise be able to produce without this process. This is still a problem for me. The element of charlatanism about this kind of work is too strong for me to ignore or make peace with.
I appreciate your comments as well as the varied reasonings offered by others and have learned more than a little from the responses in this thread. The line between the above two ways of using the bodycasting technique is more definite for me now and I appreciate the clarification.