LogFAQs > #956791923

Anyway, art history is actually pretty complex and these sorts of questions have a tendency to assume a pretty narrow or flat definition of "art."

I mean, this is considered an extremely important piece of art:


The history of art is sort of like a conversation. The most notable pieces are notable because they said something, either about how far human skill can go in the medium, or about the world, religion, or conditions of various classes in society, or made insights into the human condition or emotions, or critiqued the state of the art world itself. For sculpting in particular, the material and its stability can also be important. The David is kept in a special room in the event of quakes in stuff so that it won't break in half because of how delicately its limbs are balanced.

You could've just as easily used a Pollock splatter or an Odalisque as your picture on the left.

Is that statue in particular very notable? I'm not sure myself, but enough statues of body studies by sculpting-masters have survived and grabbed the public's consciousness, like the David, that culturally we have an image of naked statues of being representative of artistry itself.

That plastic mold of 2b, on the other hand, is silent. It says nothing about anything, it does not capture the expertise or ingenuity of the model's creator, it's just hornybait. If you put it up on a projector in a class, you'd have nothing new to talk about. Unless, perhaps, it's a class in a post-utopia future examining 21st century hyper consumerism, in which case it might be examined as a sort of art piece, though not for the reasons the OP might want it to be.

---

https://imgur.com/u5kY6Yt
https://imgur.com/V6HBhkR