Can a picture be an art piece?

Art. What is art? Can we define art? Who says what art is and what is not? A picture could be considered as an art piece? What makes something an art piece? Could be Salvador Dalí’s portrait “In Voluptas Mors” (1950) considered as an art piece? Many arguments made were for or against it. We will discuss whether this picture can be considered as art or not, why and why not.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary art is defined as: 1. the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings. 2. the activity of painting, drawing and making sculpture. 3. paintings, drawing and sculptures. 4. an activity through which people express particular ideas.

I agree with most of these ideas. In previous classes we were discussing what must have something to be considered as art. Most of this definition fits our concepts, but there is one I consider is also important: the link between the artist and the art piece. Having this point clear we proceed to analyze Dalí’s portrait.

In Voluptas Mors was taken by an Austrian photographer called Philippe Halsman, who was born in 1906 in Riga, Latvia. A series of unfortunate events makes him leave his country moving to France where he contributed in fashion magazines such as Vogue and soon gained a reputation as one of the best portrait photographers in France. As World War II moved forwards to France, he managed to flee to the U.S, aided by Albert Einstein.

In 1941 Halsman met surrealist artist Salvador Dalí and they began to collaborate in late 1940s. One of their most famous collaborations was In Voluptas Mors, which is a surrealistic sketch made by Dalí, composed of seven nudes with the shape of a very large human skull. The technique used was tableau vivant, which means “living paint”. Halsman reported that it took 28 attempts, 3 hours arranging the models, according to the sketch, to be satisfied with the result.

The photograph is quite simple, but it gives no meaning to me. When I saw this for the first time I saw nothing but a skull, but looking carefully I realized that the skull was made by naked female bodies. This really called my attention. Also the reason why he used naked female bodies intrigued me. Doing some research I couldn’t find any reasons or meanings why Dalí drew the sketch to be photographed later. One of the most important characteristics of Dalí is that he manifested he was a narcissist and megalomaniac and his objective was to attract public attention. Doing more research no one ever thought. A skull is sometimes related to death and this might be the case. What I can infer from this picture is that perhaps women can be dangerous or even deadly.

Contrasting with Dalí’s skull there is a british artist called Damien Hirst who made his art piece a skull covered by diamonds and platinum. He named his art piece “For the love of God” and was exposed in one of London’s art gallery White Cube. This is the most expensive art piece ever made and it is valued in about 99 million dollars. The skull is from a European man from XIX century from ages 30 to 40.

This piece, as well as Dalí’s, has no meaning. I can infer also something else. Maybe Hirst meant that somebody after he/she is dead can be embellished. The use of lights and shadows in the photograph makes the skull visible. If there were no lights or shadows at all I think you could only able to see the women’s bodies.

By those factors I think that In Voluptas Mors is not an art piece. It lacks a meaning which is very important, to me, to be considered as an art piece. But this photograph may be taken as an art piece just, even though Dalí didn’t took it, because the sketch was made by him and that is enough reason to some people to say it is an art piece. But my concept of art varies as well as languages, religions and thoughts all around the world.

Josué Muñoz 11 IB