Is This Art?
 

This was brought to my attention by an artist friend who teaches anatomy in an art college in California. He went to the showing and was quite psyched about it. I reserve comment.

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/pages/ausstellungsziel.asp

I think it is the whole "eye of the beholder" thing.

Seems more like Anatomy 101 than art, to me. I wouldn't pay to see it.

Actually, wouldn't go for free either.

It reminds me of an art exhibit I saw quite a few years ago at the SFMOMA. The artist had made plaster casts of roadkill.

I didn't care for it. Call me shallow, but I like art that is beautiful / inspirational / romantic.

It looks pretty damn cool, but no, I wouldn't call it art.

Art, sure. What's art?

that looks awsome. i guess it's art depending on how you look at it. like for example, we see paintings and the like, and call it art. some paintings are depictions of a people except for the most part the subjects are almost always wearing skin or clothes, or both. imagine the skin and clothes gone from other paintings, and technically, that's what you'd end up with (if the anatomy is right) except this is in 3d with no background.
um...so yeah, i count it as art.

These days, everything is art. I could take a dump on the floor and smear it all over and some jackass would probably pay 1 million dollars for it.

On topic though, I think the exhibit is quite badass. Im all for it.

Hrmmm
I think it's cool
I think it'd be great for bio
I dont know about the art part. Some people might think so

Last time I checked they were trying to pull it off as more of an educational exhibit than an art exhibit.

In either case they're just playing coy as they know that's it's not the art or educational factor that'll bring people in. I read elsewhere that they went as far as to dress up a female skeleton in a swim suit while hanging it's arm muscles hanging from it's wrists bones. This isn't about education or art - it's about the shock factor and regardless of how shocking it is, I'm not going to see it.

Is this really scientists do when they're bored?

Well, of course it is.
I don't see how there's a question.

:O Those are real bodies :O

Anything which invokes an emotional response.

(It doesn't necessarily have to be a positive one)

It's educational, I don't think it's art.

it was a huge debate here in germany (Gunther von Hagens, the creator, is german) if it is OK to present real dead bodies in such a way.
http://www.cologne-in.de/aktuell/koe...er_frontal.jpg

Personally I think it is OK, if the person allowed it. But there were also some rumors that von hagens used execution victims from china....

I also think that art is in the eye of the beholder, so if you see something "arty" in those bodies it is art, for you.

Art it is.

I wouldn't eat any meat products that they serve at the museum cafe' though.

well if this is ok, then no one can carry on the claims video games and movies create violence, these are dead bodies that are missing pieces.. such as skin

oddly, it has no affect on me though

The question "Is it art?" was definitively settled by Yoko Ono, who put a green apple on a museum stand, and titled it "Apple". The apple is replaced every few days so the piece stays fresh.

She was saying that art is that which an artist calls art. Art is a subjective process with a subjective outcome, all of which lives inside the artist's creation and which exists only by the artist's declaration.

Whether it'll sell is another issue entirely. Although the site makes it sound like this exhibit has been pretty successful.

I noticed a reference to this in an old Penthouse over the weekend.

i have some sympathy with this; however it is a circular defintion and hence can be abused

1 i am an artist because i produce art
2 it is art because i produced it and i am an artist (see 1)

Bingo! Perfect answer. It's the artist's intentions that matter.

Anything can be art at anytime given certain subjective circumstances.
It is conceit to think that one person or group could define what it is or isn’t.
That definition occurs at the moment of interaction and the results often vary wildly.

/me starts flicking ppl off and calling it art.



If it didn't take any artistic effort/talent, I do not call it art. DaVinci was an Artist. Ppl who dip cadavers into a solution and pose the corpses are coroners who wanted to be mannequin dressers for Saks.

I went into more depth in this thread.

I would call it Art.

Presonally I appreciate art that is either appealing to my senses or enriching in some way. I tend to prefer art that takes more effort that putting an apple on display but I wouldn't knock it. These creations take a lot of research and time an effort.