I’ve been talking with my girlfriend about my morphs. She told me once this is a form of art. I never thought of morphing as expression of art; I always consider it more as fun. Then I asked myself what I consider art and if morphing tits is what I would call art.

Let’s not consider the fact that we like to morph the breast especially. This comes from our passion for that peculiar part of female body. We could be cock morphers, nose morphers, butt morphers. Somes of us already do a lot of morphing over different parts of the body. Even the mere “reconstruction” of the breast size and shape should be interesting kind of expression if we accept it as a “will of re-creation” as I suggested in a writing of mine over the beauty of Misteress Rhiannon.

But what was my girlfriend talking about: my technical ability (?) or was she talking about my accuracy in putting different elements in my morphs, my desire to convert the shapes, to change the colors, to reshape the reality in a “realistic irreality”, like my morph was a surrealistic paint? In ancient Greece the idea of art was expressed by the word “techne” that means all the ensamble of the rules and the ability referred to any field of hand making. This term was mutuated by the latins by the word “ars”: “techne/ars” were pottery, sculpting, ect…. Over the centuries these two words had to diverge and to mean two different things.

“Techne” is the root of words as technology, that stands today as the ensamble of the rules and the knowledges of a certain field applied to obtain a material result. During last centuries technology is a word applied to the machines able to substitute the human beings in different works and applications. More specifically, during last decades, technology meant more and more something related to machines able to do things which were once impossible to imagine (travel in the space, talking at long distances, modifying images, real time communications…).

Art went on signifying the ability to implement the result of some “techne”with a meaning not related to the direct use of what’s obtained by the techne itself. The techne was the ability to paint with colors a wall. The art was the ability to implement a paint with forms and ideas. The techne was the ability to sculpt a piece of stone in a particular shape. The art is the ability to choose a shape related to a meaning.

And that’s the point: we demonstrate our will to communicate by our signs. And we give signs of our will by the use of our techne. And this is not only related to the western civilization. Any group of human beings uses sculptures, colors, sounds to express meanings. In any society there is the techne of wood-sculpting, but peculiar meaning has the sculpture of a god and not the sculpture of a bowl.

We like to communicate.

I believe the art is a form of communication. Between human being, to communicate is one of the most important necessities. Every one of us feels the need to communicate not just to solve everyday problems, but also as the solution to one of our deepest fears: the fear to be alone. We are in constant reach for somebody who can understand us and who we can understand. Just to feel we are not alone, just to feel we are not the only ones to be like that, to have those feelings, to have those ideas.

More than once I have read in the BEA forums how many of the oldest of us felt pleasure the first time they discovered there were morphers out there, there was people with the same “passion” for exagerated tits. They were not alone…

We communicate through logical means. Words, sounds, images which are accepted by a common agreement as the “signs” to mean something. A word that means something. An image, a sound that mean something. So many signs we have been taught to recognize as meaning of something.

I believe there are so many things we cannot logically describe. There are things we couldn’t tell of. The art is the way we use to communicate, through those logical means (words, sounds, images) what is logically impossible to communicate. E.g., the poetry is not only the ability to use the words, but it is the ability to communicate, through the words, what the words could not communicate by a logical point of view. Feelings, desires, sensations, which we couldn’t describe otherwise.

Is breast expansion – the only action of morphing a pair of tits - the way to mean something we couldn’t mean by any other way? Or is it only the ability to make something that ‘till some years ago was impossible? Is it art or is it technology?

Personally I would call it fun. But the question “art vs technology” is really open in my mind. Is the application of a knowledge art – even an innovative application? Or is art anything different? Is there art where we use a technology with no innovation?

I’ve been wondering around these question while visiting an art show a couple of days ago. It looks to me like today any artists could justify its works by including it in the “non formal” category. It has got no common shape, so it is something that express a hidden meaning so it is art. But since the sixties so many artists are repeating these reasons. Should we call them in overtime? Some other critics wouldn’t call art anything which is not related with the computer society. Is innovation art for itself?