Is plastic surgery an art form?

It’s no secret that I am into art; I collect art, I make art, and it colors my approach to plastic surgery. So in a sense I consider plastic surgery an art form as much as a technical tour de force, but a new exhibit at a gallery in New York makes the point literally. Apexart, in the TriBeCa district, has a new show curated by a plastic surgeon featuring “before and after” images and surgery videos. The patients are the medium, the operating room the studio. I haven’t seen the show, but I understand that it covers a range of procedures from pediatric reconstructive cases to facelifts.

The concept is interesting, but I suppose it was just a matter of time. Superficially, it seems perfectly legitimate to consider plastic surgery an art form, and I will be the first to defend the idea. But it also begs the question of what art really is. Plastic surgeons have long debated whether what we do is more science or craft; I am of the opinion that it is both. The downside to a show like this is not that it sensationalizes plastic surgery, but that it may oversimplify the question of art’s importance in a broader sense.

I am reminded of the recent case of a private college whose endowment fund evaporated with the economic collapse last year. They were forced to consider selling the one thing that had retained its value over the years: their art collection. Art isn’t merely a luxury, and its value isn’t arbitrary; according to Denis Dutton, author of The Art Instinct, making art is in our genes. And just take a look around to confirm that self-adornment and self-enhancement are impulses just as ingrained. It’s not a question of whether these are natural and normal pursuits but where to draw the line between good and bad taste.

I have a suggestion for the bad taste side: Another new art show, this one at the Weisman Art Museum in Minnesota, features a petunia plant. Named “Edunia,” the plant has a copy of one of the artist’s genes spliced in, making it technically part human (he calls it a “planimal”). In this case, using biomedical technology to create a living “work of art” just seems meaningless to me. Sure, the idea is provocative, which is the probably the whole point, but so what?

So I’ll stick with figure drawing and working toward bringing out people’s natural beauty with plastic surgery. Oh and I am definitely all about the new technology too, but I think of it as a tool and not the statement in and of itself.