Art??

Uh, no. And I tend to enjoy modern art. I enjoy seeing what people come up with.

The point (one of the points) of the piece has less to do with Vincent than with how modern biotech revivifies some of the questions about what it means to be original or where the boundaries lie between the physical and the spiritual - this is a popular topic with contemporary installation artists and their audiences.

The artist herself says
“I’m not sure that everyone understands the full scientific and biological implications,” the artist writes. “The scientific approach is based on the Theseus’s paradox by Plutarch… He asked if a ship would be the same ship if all its parts were replaced. This paradox is brought into a 21st-century context by using a living cell line (from Lieuwe van Gogh) in which we replaced (at least as a proof of principle) his natural DNA with historical and synthesized DNA.”

This reminds me of a prop comic in the '70s who would tell jokes while juggling dangerous items like chainsaws and machetes. He would hold up a vintage axe and say that it was George Washington's original axe, a priceless antique. The audience would make dubious noises, and the comic would admit, "Well, I had to replace the head ... and the handle -- but it occupies the same space."
And Philip K. Dick fans will recall how important replicas are in his books, as objects (or robots or people or timelines) that play with notions of sign and symbolism. Issues of signification are central to contemporary art.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/guest-performance---michael-davis/n8836

A bioengineered ear is to art as my walking down the street is to ballet. So, no.

Wow, you learn stuff on this forum that you'd never learn anywhere else! ;-)

I don't think one needs to add a "u" to Vincent's last name. As to the ear replication....could this be the start of something big?

I've always heard that art was in the eye of the beholder. And the ear, as well?

Avirose's contributions about the boat and the juggled ax somehow made me think of a bit of literary art. THE Deacons marvelous One Horse Shay.... made in such a way.... that all of the parts wore out at once. Ah, a liberal arts education never goes to waste

CJean, in my experience, when certain people walk down a street, it can be poetry in motion.
Happy holidays, everyone!

So if I ask you to Lend me an Ear, am I asking to borrow some of your art collection?

Or was Shakespeare’s Mark Antony requesting a larger contribution from friends and Roman countrymen?

And as far as the Van Gogh installation, without the rest of his body, was that piece of ear really still a part of Vincent? Or was it just scrap tissue?

If that detached ear remnant no longer represented Vincent, then how relevant to the artist was a cloned ear from a several-generations-later relative? And a whole left ear, when Vincent no longer possessed one - that wouldn’t be an accurate depiction now, would it? Or maybe it would be an artistic abstraction, however bizarre.

Now a silk purse from a sow’s ear . . . THAT would be art!

See, we are all discussing the ear and delving into “what is art?” discourse. If that’s the point of the art then it seems to be working...

@Allan, have you delved into, or resolved the "art vs craft" argument? Though the ear, to me is more a scientific success, it is still the result of a creative mind. Creative minds have made their place in many specialties and at times they appear as pure artistry.
I go with 'art is in the eye of the beholder'. It is much less mentally strenuous.

Maria, my art education is still in the beginner stages but wouldn't the ear lean more to the craft side of things? Looking up a definition, art is described as an unstructured and open-ended form of work; that expresses emotions, feelings, and vision. Craft is a form of work, involving the creation of physical objects, by the use of hands and brain. Art relies on artistic merit whereas craft is based on learned skills and technique.

It seems to me, building an ear leans toward the creation of a physical object. If the purpose of the ear is to express emotion and feeling then I have to think the artist failed to send the intended message if he/she needs to explain their work.

But I continue to admit that when it comes to art, I am still an uneducated rube and rely on opinions. But no, even the pro art people on this post will not convince me to drop everything and fly to New York.

an unstructured and open-ended form of work; that expresses emotions,
feelings, and vision
Well, that is interesting...given the extensive number of historical 'art' with set structure, limited size, and even set dimension. But that art vs craft argument has gone on for eons. At times, it's due to the medium the maker uses that gets poo pooed as 'not real art'. Craft may also represent and evoke emotion which brings me back to the 'art is in the eye of the beholder' comment. Clearly, this 'ear' will incite the gamut of emotions.
Yes, the ear could then be considered 'craft', and, thankfully, galleries and museums do showcase 'craft' and recognize its contributions and value....though in this case, its 'value' will likely leave many perplexed.
I'm with you. No desire to go out of my way to see it; but when reading about it, I did think it would benefit from the ability to see it in 3 dimensions.

Is there, somewhere, an ears playing poker piece?

To me, no matter the era, the style or the media, art is first in the creative and subjective mind of the art maker. Artists are the first definers of what art is. That goes for architects, composers, musicians, writers, playwrights, filmmakers and all the many and varied kinds of artists.

Beholders come much later, or perhaps not at all, with their own subjective views of what the artist has made. They respond to the work and decide if it fits into their definition or preconceived notions of what art is. If it doesn't, they have difficulty in recognizing the work as art.

Personal preference plays a gigantic role in that recognition, even for those who have extensive education and experience in seeing, hearing and experiencing artistic works.

For me, the more I see, hear and experience, the more I appreciate the work, but appreciation does not necessarily equal liking it.

For example, I cannot imagine a time when Baroque churches with "angels in the architecture spinning in infinity" to quote Paul Simon, will ever impress me in a positive way or at all, but I have to admit that they are works of art. In terms of travel, I'll skip the Baroque, no matter how famous it may be and choose the Romanesque or Gothic.

I'm a fan of contemporary art, but make a special trip to see a representation of Van Gogh's ear? Nope. But to see his paintings, which didn't begin to be appreciated until the year before he died? Absolutely, as many of them as I can, as often as I can.

An ear rivals a toilet for art. Same goes for pornography sold as modern art.

If something piques your interest (for whatever reason, even if marginally) and you have a reasonable way to see it in person, why not? I think the most important thing is to be open to art and not to prejudge, or use others' opinions to shape your own without taking the time to absorb it for yourself. To me, art is a very individual and personal experience. If I don't understand something or want to learn more, I engage with docents and museum/ gallery staff about the pieces or do my own research first. But I don't see the point of writing anything off before you see it first. It's sometimes surprising how low expectations can be met and even exceeded - that is the wonder of discovery. Luckily, I am close enough to NY to do (long) day trips, but any visits will have to wait until COVID is under control.