Why Should Plastic Surgery Be Considered Art?
What defines art? Is it the medium? No, because it can be made with anything and the only thing that hinders the artistic from doing so is the limitation of technology.
An artist would shape and mould air if he could, or twist plasma into magnificent forms if it was possible.
It is not material dependent, though material does play a major role.
Is it the form of the result? What we call art cannot be defined as simply paintings on canvas, or sculptures in bronze or stone.
Modern art utilizes exotic materials like plastics, steel and scrap metals, glass, concrete, and even composite materials.
The future that we can glimpse in our daily lives is that of a digital nature; digital art, while not recognized by many snobs as real art, is valued as such by many others -- hence the name digital "art".
No, it is not about what form it takes, though form is integral to its nature.
Then is it the perceived value? Perhaps this is the most definite of its definitions.
Ironically, while the definition is definite, the actuality is quite the opposite.
People value different things, and no two people will look at something and have identical emotions.
Thus, if art is something that we value as such, then no single piece will be valued by everyone as such -- a man looks at a painting and says its art, another says it is trash.
This is one of the most difficult things to define.
There is no single definition, and debates rage on about what art is and what is art.
If we said that it was a complex function of material, form, and value, then we could not grasp its entirety but somehow show a glimpse of the real meaning.
If we say it is a combination of what we use, what it becomes, and how we feel about it, then could we not say that plastic surgery is art as well? The shaping of a material to produce shapes and lines that some see as beautiful -- is it not just another form of art? The materials in this case are living skin and flesh.
The material is delicate and difficult to work with.
It is not that it is not easy to cut and trim; modern surgical technology has ensured ease of those tasks, and the technology is only becoming better.
Skin and flesh are living materials and the state of the material changes by the moment.
Even worse, the result must be as alive as the input or at least close to it.
If art stands outside of material, then surely skin and flesh are valid media.
The resulting forms are crafted by the skilled hands of plastic surgeons to achieve beauty by the wishes of the client.
This beauty too, is subjective.
No single set of features is beautiful for every single person and so the value of such beauty changes with the beholder -- the same characteristic of all other art.
Plastic surgery is the skillful crafting of skin and flesh into forms of beauty, in the same way that art is the making of media into something that may be valued in some way.
In this sense, plastic surgery is art.
An artist would shape and mould air if he could, or twist plasma into magnificent forms if it was possible.
It is not material dependent, though material does play a major role.
Is it the form of the result? What we call art cannot be defined as simply paintings on canvas, or sculptures in bronze or stone.
Modern art utilizes exotic materials like plastics, steel and scrap metals, glass, concrete, and even composite materials.
The future that we can glimpse in our daily lives is that of a digital nature; digital art, while not recognized by many snobs as real art, is valued as such by many others -- hence the name digital "art".
No, it is not about what form it takes, though form is integral to its nature.
Then is it the perceived value? Perhaps this is the most definite of its definitions.
Ironically, while the definition is definite, the actuality is quite the opposite.
People value different things, and no two people will look at something and have identical emotions.
Thus, if art is something that we value as such, then no single piece will be valued by everyone as such -- a man looks at a painting and says its art, another says it is trash.
This is one of the most difficult things to define.
There is no single definition, and debates rage on about what art is and what is art.
If we said that it was a complex function of material, form, and value, then we could not grasp its entirety but somehow show a glimpse of the real meaning.
If we say it is a combination of what we use, what it becomes, and how we feel about it, then could we not say that plastic surgery is art as well? The shaping of a material to produce shapes and lines that some see as beautiful -- is it not just another form of art? The materials in this case are living skin and flesh.
The material is delicate and difficult to work with.
It is not that it is not easy to cut and trim; modern surgical technology has ensured ease of those tasks, and the technology is only becoming better.
Skin and flesh are living materials and the state of the material changes by the moment.
Even worse, the result must be as alive as the input or at least close to it.
If art stands outside of material, then surely skin and flesh are valid media.
The resulting forms are crafted by the skilled hands of plastic surgeons to achieve beauty by the wishes of the client.
This beauty too, is subjective.
No single set of features is beautiful for every single person and so the value of such beauty changes with the beholder -- the same characteristic of all other art.
Plastic surgery is the skillful crafting of skin and flesh into forms of beauty, in the same way that art is the making of media into something that may be valued in some way.
In this sense, plastic surgery is art.
