Re: Is bodycasting really art?
Jason - My apologies on the matter of photography. I misread your post 166 in which you said photography always is to be considered an art since it is not mimetic of painting, but is altogether different. In fact, referring to my memories of long-ago conversations with the local photographers I mentioned, and readings of the time, many early photographers DID try to imitate painting (in black and white, of course) by adding in some manner brushstrokes to texturize the image.
Where I differ from you is more fundamental. You rephrased my saying "The final product decides the question" in regard to the defining quality of art into "The end justifies the means". To a large degree, but with qualifications such as the child who accidentally produces a good photograph, I DO think it is the art that reveals an artist and not the artist who turns everything he touches into art. That is, I consider art self-evident, much like truth. This, of course, is dangerous ground, because people can be fooled regarding the truth of a situation, but that is pretty much analogous to the case with art. I'll leave the discussion here for now, as not to get too complicated in one post.