Sort of reminds me of the photographer who travels around and organizes these shoots of hundreds of people just lying around completely naked. It's just mind-boggling to call that art.
 

here in lies the problem...

define art.
 

Exactly...define art...especially for everyone. It's impossible. I think that photographing interesting arrangements of naked people in everyday settings that change the way you see those settings is art. That's my opinion though.

In the blood art case, I think that's art also. But I stand by eBay's decision to ban the auction of those items. It's part of their existing policy and also it could be considered unsanitary and eBay doesn't want to be involved in some frivolous lawsuit for that.
 

It is great to hear that others doubt the sensationalist art movements that rely more on shock than talent. I respect people who use their ideas and skills, together, to create something. I am afraid of being lost by the wayside because I prefer to paint people and nudes in oils rather than bodily fluids - but not afraid enough to sacrifice my own artistic ideals.
 

This is exactly what I am writing about in my term paper for a Contemporary Design class in college. When is art comprimised for the sake of mass media? When do said artists stop creating art and simply catering to said sensationalism and completely undermining any thought or meaning into their work?

On that thought, what about such artists that combine the two ("pretty landscapes" and body fluid art)? I found a lady in the states who will do a commemorative painting for people using the ashes of a deceased family member. When looking at her work, there is no obvious connection between the two. The paintings are typically pastel colours flowing around eachother in an abstract fashion, some sections with a rough, grainy texture, almost like fine silt or gravel. I find her work just as intellectually gruesome as Gunther von Hagens' anatomy studies, but in no way plays upon the sensationalism of modern media.
 

ART IS NOT AN ULTIMATE COMPLEMENT. ART is the power to do something not taught by nature or instincts. You give the word art too much importance. "This is art!!" They say with so much pride. A two year old kid's drawing is also art. Yes, you found real art! Anything can be art. No big deal! But there is a huge difference between art and a work of art. If there is not hard work in what you did in here then it's not a work of art. It's not impossible to prove that there is no hard work on something and how or why a composition is not interesting to the eye. Or that is obvious that the piece is not comunicating what you want so you're forced to repeat a story and explain over and over everything in the painting to try to make the expectator feel something. If the painting is good enough the expectator is gonna feel something anyway, even if he doesn't know what is about. Liking something or not is not a practice of art. It requires some knowlege. And a client can be ignorant, not everybody studies art. But ultimately he is the one who chooses the pieces he wants to collect. It's crazy, it's daring art, it's been done before. And I think they're been naive if you think it hasn't. Young people are crazy and daring all the time including young artists and it's not something rare to watch. It is fun it is good at selling stuff. But if you don't have nothing to say it can get real old real fast. Another thing that is good at selling stuff also is controversy. But, is there really a controversy here? I mean they're right. It's art. Sometimes mediocre, obvious, whatever. whoever thinks it affects the reputation of artists in general and or hate that there making money out of unbelievable stories (in a lot of cases they're fake I'm an art student I know some people they seem to admit it) fighting them has made good stories in their favor for years . It's not that it's fake, it's that is obvious that they're fake. Like a bad novel. There are thousands of these. Crazy and vulgar is not necessarily a bad thing. Vulgar can be fun, but vulgar can also mean common. COMMON IT'S MOSTLY NOT PRICELESS.
 

As someone who has used blood in drawing(http://www.artbreak.com/work/show/3002-profound-history-of-the-victoria-cross-daniel-c-boyer) I object to eBay's decision.

Daniel C. Boyer
 

ditto
 

"Sort of reminds me of the photographer who travels around and organizes these shoots of hundreds of people just lying around completely naked. It's just mind-boggling to call that art."

Spencer Tunick? He is my all-time favorite photographer. It's beautiful, the way he captures the human body in such an innocent way. I find the human body absolutely astonishing, and it never ceases to amaze me.

I think art is any form of expression in any medium - whether you like the art or not is up to you.