On Bodyworlds, and if it is Art
(Bodyworlds, you might not know, is an exhibition of posed, preserved cadavers (minus the skin). They are meant to raise awareness about our bodies and health, as well as expemplify what goes on beneath the skin. The bodies have been posed doing many things, such as sports, and even riding animals that have also been preserved.)
In a way, to me, this is no different from simply creating an incredibly detailed and highly realistic sculpture, perhaps out of wire, or plastic. So yes, I would consider it art. I do not, necessarily, though, consider it a very expressive form of art--staring a a real human liver on a table, in a box and labelled, is perhaps not quite as expressive or as interest- and thought-provoking as a real human liver mounted on a post, high above us and at an odd angle, inspiring questions and creativity. In a way, and if you look at the base substance, yes, it's more or less the same thing. But then agaiin this can be compared to perhaps a pipecleaner--all good and fine when lying there straight on the table, but not much to make us wonder. Now, if there were fifteen pipecleaners all glued to the table, which was in turn glued to the wall, and those pipecleaners lay at exact right angles and in rainbow order, exactly three inches apart, except for a single one which was out of place and askew? That, to me, is more artistic than the simple pipecleaner lying there.
I suppose that what i mean to say is that art inspires thought, and requires thought and effort to be made, and if you have to put thought and effort into turning something ordinary into something that inspires wonder, then you've made are. So, similarly, I would count perhaps and expressive pair of plasticates dancing, each with individual expressions on their faces, as more artistic than the simple liver mentioned above, labelled and explained. The dancing pair make you wonder--who are they? Why are they dancing? WHERE are they dancing? Why do they have those expressions? The liver requires almost no thought, as all the thinking has been done for you, and is written out neatly in text behind a helpful sheet of plexiglass.
For me, then, I suppose I must say that art at its base INSPIRES and REQUIRES thought, usually a questioning type of thought, and perhaps effort. I believe it is this thought that puts emotion into the work, be it of the fine arts or of a piece of music or of the movements of the dancer, and that this definition allows even the most basic of things to become art, and to become beautiful, once thought about enough, in a certain light. That is what makes the art unique, I believe, and what is art to one individual may not be to another. However, if a work INSPIRES and REQUIRES thought in and by the majority, then it becomes part of the definition of art by the majority and will be more widely accepted. Everything CAN be art when viewed in a certaiin light, but if you do not view it in that certain, questioning light, it is not art.