Wim Delvoye Tattoo Art on Human Skin

"It's art because it got sold" Wim Delvoye, a Belgian contemporary artist says. Is this really a factor for evaluating contemporary art? However, Rembrandt knew about it (he insisted he sell his prints from the first to the last  copy rather than individually). Andy Warhol pretty much invented the art factory system if not refined the way it works, and today the artwork getting the most attention and discussion is undeniably the ones with the biggest price figures. So Delvoye is right in some sense. If there is a demand and willingness to pay for an item of questionable artistic quality, then maybe this is a new deciding factor for contemporary art and what art is- in other words if someone will buy it.

I’m referring to his artwork “Tattooing Tim.” It is a tattoo composition on Tim Steiner's back and a compilation of popular tattoo choices such as the Virgin Mary, roses, skulls, bats, birds, and Asian cultural references. It is all permanently tattooed on Tim Steiner’s back until his death. Once dead, his skin went for $215,000 at a Philips de Pury auction (specialized in ultra contemporary art auctions) in 2008 and won by a German art collector, Rik Reinking, who will claim the skin once Tim Steiner is dead.

First he tattooed Louis Vuitton and Disney characters onto the skin of pigs, but making a man a living and breathing work of art, takes the concept to a whole new level, especially since he comes with a price tag and ownership rights once his heart stops beating. The sale agreement gives a cut to the gallery/auction De Pury & Luxembourg, Steiner, and Wim Delvoye and Tim Steiner will show his back about three times yearly to public and private shows. Imagine if your paintings could talk and had a life of their own?

The questions it raises are exactly what the art world craves and loves to talk about from redefining an artwork, the role of the art market, the ethical, and legal issues at hand. What if Tim Steiner one day decides to get it removed without warning, or disappears, where will the art collector find him, what if he develops a skin disease, and in this case will it still be art? Then again Damien Hirst’s formaldehyde shark “The Physical Impossibility of Death in Someone Living” got a second chance after it was deteriorating to stand as a work of art, which already addressed those controversies.

The act of buying this Delvoye art piece is putting a tracking number on a person for the rest of his life. They best become good friends or send holiday cards once in a while. It’s a scary thought having to live your life knowing you’re a display piece until the end- even a trophy wife would shiver. Then, again, these issues may have been why the skin did not go for more than a quarter million, otherwise that’s a big risk to pay. It seems immortality, the eternal quality of artworks, is a big incentive to go through with this idea “I [Tim Steiner] will exist forever, at least a part of me will, and I find that concept more exciting than morbid." It’s true his skin will be talked about and presented long after he will be gone, but that is just it- his skin will remain forever, but will the skin’s carrier as a person be remembered or will the art piece lose its effect once the person has stopped living? It’s the thought of his bought skin and the uncertain outcome of this whole story, which is causing chaos and redefinitions of art. How would this be different had Delvoye presented an already stretched tattooed skin as art?

In the end does the tattoo image itself have any importance for the entirety of tattoo art and its history? Tattoos are known to be body decorations or identity markers, but can these be considered art? At first ShComtemporary in Shanghai was skeptical and dismissed it as art altogether, refusing to exhibit the idea. Maybe the tattoos themselves weren’t even important for conveying his idea, but simply the only medium that makes sense to use on a human’s skin for canvas to get this controversial reaction. Controversy doesn’t necessarily mean art, so what was artistic in this art piece? Is it the intent to shock or the creative process- because every person with a tattoo on their back is not a work of art and they don’t have suitors wanting to buy their skin postmortem.

Other Wim Delvoye artworks are equally controversial, which at times might be too harsh to stomach and accept as truths. This is the case with “Cloaca” a laboratory set up where a chef feeds this machine delicious meals, the machine processes the components, and then defecates at the end of the assembly line. Each turd sells for $1000, this is a cold portrayal of humanity- will it find enough supportive buyers and viewers to his version of a truth? For more articles or events on this artist search www.MutualArt.com