A Response to Griffin's Question

In his blog Griffin asked the question, Can a human be an art object?

This is a very interesting question that has numerous implications. This question depends upon one thing, how the public or audience views it. In my opinion, anything is an art object if the public or the art audience views it as such. Art is not truly art unless it is appreciated as art. This might seem superficial or solely based upon the approval of others but it is true. As Goodman described in his chapter, we would not think of Rembrandt's works of art as works of art unless they were displayed in an art gallery or in a museum as art. We would not look at it twice if it was, as Goodman suggests, hanging as window or used as a blanket. This, I believe, would be true for humans too. Since, for the most part, we are not displayed or thought of as great works of art, we are not going to be viewed as such. But things are changing this view. There was an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science in which people who donated their bodies to science were put on display. They were posed in positions of athletes, housewives, and dancers. The different poses displayed the different layers of skin, the many organs, and the complex muscles. This was not only a science exhibit but also an art exhibit in many people's eyes. Humans were not only the audience and the artist but the art in this case. Also, could we not say that performance art has humans being the art piece as well? Humans are up on stage performing and displaying themselves as the art whether that means dancing or acting or singing. Do you believe humans are the art form in these cases or do you believe the dance or the play or the song itself is the art form?