Re: Bio-artists bridge gap between arts, sciences
The "is this art" question has been around for a long time, I think it is rediculous. If we start defining what is and what isn't art we close down many avenues of exploration and progression in the arts. I think about Clement Greenberg when I hear people start to define what art is, Greenberg sought out to define modernism and did just that. I guess that would have been fine but since he was such a "well respected" art critic, people took his word as gospel, extended its scope to the fact that they were living in modernist times and so all art that was made should hold to his definition. What did this do? Well the public grew tired of grometric sculptures and artwork that had nothing to do with the larger world outside of the arts and so artists started to rebel. Artwork started to be more and more about the world and had less self imposed isolation. We moved into a period where artists began making work that was all about the idea, many people hated this, wondering where the art was. Now we live in a period that embraces art of many kinds (I say many because there are probably some forms of art that are still not accepted). Artists and people are free to create art from any material they can find, they are free to explore any subject that they feel is deserving, and I think this is a healthy place to be. Much of todays art is heavily influenced by what has come before but is done in a new way often with new materials that speak of different issues than the period being referenced. So I saywelcome to all sculptures/ art being made from dead people, fungus, poo, spaghetti, pollen, paper, cardboard, steel, bronze, aluminum, etc... and encourage all of you to not be inhibited by your idea of what makes art, you are an artist, you made it, you can call it art or anything else that you want to call it and who are any of us to tell you differently.
Go forth and create!