96 / So, is it art?

That's (probably) an irrelevant question - but by all accounts Spencer Tunick's stunts are worthy experiences for participants.

If you go by Josef Beuys' doctrine - 'everything is art' (he claims a participatory role for the artist in shaping society using social sculpture to express themes from social philosophy, humanism and anthroposophy) - the answer is a given.

But then, at the opposite end of art criticism, we have Jonathan Jones of the Guardian: "Tunick's work isn't art, and no one who actually considered it for a moment would say it was. Liking Spencer Tunick is a covert way of saying you hate art."

So there. Methinks Tunick is on a great racket. Talk about having found your niche! And it seems those who were there

(I wasn't) had the time of their life.

Update:

I used to be rather ambivalent about his stuff; I never thought his bodies lined up like sardines in a tin can were appealing …

… but now I've come across this idiotic opinion piece by Carola Long, in which she states that “mass nudity is just a cheap – and slightly revolting – way to attract attention.” She goes on about how she finds it “utterly baffling why anyone would fall for [Tunick's] shtick,” and how she’s unsure why looking the same is a “good thing.” Long then proceeds to describe the “pleasures of [wearing] clothes,” which include the ability to create individual style, and “differentiate yourself.” Oh boy!

And how about this letter to the newspaper from David Stevens of Sunnybank Hills, Qld: "How many people were arrested for indecent exposure in a public place? From the lack of media reports, none. That the police allowed this disgraceful display calls into question their ability to enforce the law. Are they afraid to do that? That the citizens of this once great city appear not to have protested calls into question their level of support for immorality in their midst. This was not art, it was grubby voyerism at its worst." Is there a psychiatrist in the house to attend to poor Mr. Stevens?

So, now I rather like Tunick's work; can't help myself (… still think it's a little silly, though.)

Comment, by A., 2010.03.21

It was such an amazing experience. I'd thoroughly recommend it to everyone as a "life experience". Like a natural high!

The point of Spencer Tunick coming out for Mardi Gras was to celebrate that no matter what our sexual orientation is, we are all made of the same raw elements. In Australia nudity is such a taboo but it really makes you realise we're all made of flesh as human beings and it was an amazing celebration of that fact. The social experience that it was incredible and liberating especially having grown up in such a conservative culture.

As an experience, it was so humbling to realise that no matter what your social status, nationality, income, religion or sexual orientation, we were all there to celebrate humanity, art, the beauty of our natural landscape and engineered landscape as well. Being part of a "greater" motive and experience is something that people don't get these days now that communities and religious gatherings seem to have dissipated.

Lastly, the most important aspect of participating in Tunick's work was the celebration of love. One of the poses we had to do was embrace whoever was next to us and embrace/kiss them. The artwork was like a microcosm for all of the different forms of love that exist in our world. Love is not celebrated enough in our world. We are often so cynical and pessimistic, full of qualms about our economy, politics and who our enemies are. Love in it's simple form is always worth celebrating and this was an especially great artwork to be part of.