Sweet Tattoo

"It's art because it got sold" Wim Delvoye, a Belgian contemporary artist says. This is a sort of dire truth about the current characteristics of contemporary art. However, Rembrandt knew about it (he insisted his prints sell together in a bundle from the first print to the last rather than separately), Warhol practically invented the art factory if not refined the concept from Rembrandt’s time, and today the art getting the most attention is the art with the biggest receipt. So yes, if there is a demand and willingness to pay for an item of questionable artistic quality, then maybe this is a new contemporary deciding factor of what art is- if someone will pay for it.
Wim Delvoye's artwork entitled “Tattooing Tim” is the controversial piece at hand. He has tattooed the back of Tim Steiner with a composition made up of popular tattoos such as the Virgin Mary, roses, skulls, bats, birds, and Asian culture references. This is a permanent composition on Tim Steiner’s back until his death. Once dead, his skin went for $215,000 at a Philips de Pury auction (specialized in fresh contemporary art auctions) in 2008 where hte highest bidder was 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 ShContemporary 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.