Recently Denise responded to one of my blog posts on the humanity of art. (her response can be found here http://denisesphlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/humans-as-art.html) I would like to raise the point that she did not answer my question. What I asked was whether a Person could be art. She responded by giving examples of tattoos, a sculpture of a man, and performance art that uses the human body to express visual art. I would like to say that this was not what I meant by human art.
The tattoo on the human body might be considered art, but it would also exist as art on some other form of media. The tattoo is the inherent art, not the human.
The sculpture of the human body is made of stone, not of flesh. Although sculpture might represent humans, it is not the human body.
The Performance art was close, but no cigar. The actors used their bodies, but the art was in what they were representing, not in their body inherently. They were the blank canvas, not the art on the canvas, if that makes any sense.
What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?
I responded to your question.
ReplyDeletehttp://denisesphlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-that-case.html