There are significant likenesses which could include people as being "art" however I think that there is one major factor which makes it impossible for a human to be art. One could argue that humans are in fact original, our lives are created and changed through experience, they can certainly evoke emotion/have the power to move others, and are in the most literal sense, man-made. Although this seems very convincing, I would say that people are not art because that would imply that art is created on other grounds besides on intention and expression. The production of a human is an innate impulse, instinctive, more so than it is an intent to produce a "work". Art needs to have intention to be looked upon as such. I would argue that humans could more so be described as products of craft, because they are most commonly produced with means for use as a human being rather than for aesthetic qualities.
counter-example to my own argument:
Excerpt from "Why Cats Paint"I've seen work such as this (often called "non-primate art"...hmm, interesting), done by various animals receive much popularity in the art world. Yes, these cats are painting, however is it still art if it is impossible to know whether or not the animal has any aesthetic intention behind it? Does art in fact exist independently from humans?
how about here, with the performing arts?
Excerpt from "Dancing With Cats"
Questions Raised:
Does art exist without humans?
Are people products of craft?
I am responding to your question
ReplyDelete