Well… I believe there are no limitations when we talk about subjects of art. Perhaps in the classic art standards there were some, but nowadays, you can make art out of anything. People consider that you are creating art when you do a portrait of somebody (it does not really matter the materials you use), or when you create a documentary or film about people’s active life. But my question is, if we consider art the awaken part of the human being, why is the inactive part something else? The coin has two sides, and I do not think it is a good idea to just ignore one of them. It is true that sleeping people have been watched extensively by the scientific society, but just for medical/psychological purposes; and I guess people could say that when you put an actress to sleep inside a glass box at MoMa, you are not going after any practical result, as the scientist, but isn’t art just that? Art does not need a why, because or what for… I think art is just about how, when and where. I also believe that art (or some kind of art) is not for everybody, so there will always be somebody who claims that something is not art, and that is ok, because in the end that rejection is just part of the existence of art.
