WARNING: Links in this post lead to news articles containing artistic photographs of naked people.
It's a highly debated question: What is art? Many approach the answer by saying what art isn't. Is it art simply because it's shocking or disturbing, because it makes you think, or only if it's beautiful?
You may have seen and/or heard about the most recent photo shoot by American photographer Spencer Tunick. He is known for his nude photography. So here's my question to you - is it art?
I'll come right out and say I think it is. It's very provocative and creative. Artistically, the human body becomes an element instead of just the subject. I wonder if this might be a perspective our Creator has.
A definition of art that I use is that it's creating a new perspective on a familiar thing or the exploration of what things are made of by recreating them out of context. For example, drawing or painting a fish using nothing but black lines and still communicating the characteristics and environment of a fish. Or creating a picture of a fish out of macaroni by determining what characteristics macaroni and a fish have in common or in what new ways can you look at macaroni that can make it communicate "fish". Either way, you are either stretching the view of the subject or the medium.
Tunick describes his photographs this way:
"I aim to get a sculptural feel for groups of bodies, as well as create performance art." - Telegraph
He's scupting by exploring the use of a new medium.
So what do you think of his work?
Nudes were very common in works of the great masters. Is it different because Tunick uses photography?
At what point does nude art become pornography?
Has the church played a role in demoralizing art simply because of the nude?