In that case...

Last week, I responded to Griffin's question as to whether humans can be art in my post "Humans as Art".  Apparently, I misunderstood his question, prompting him to clarify in his post "A counter to Denise's response to my question", in which he asked: "What I want to know is can the human body be the art inherently without it representing some other form of art?"

Firstly, I would like to change the term human body to human experience, meaning the experience of being a living human in an intellectual, emotional, and corporeal world.  To isolate just the human body, one would have to take the life out of it and it becomes just another object.

Now, one could argue that every moment of human existence is a piece of performance art. However, that seems very inclusive. And then, it's just another play, the story of a person's life.

Perhaps, we're examining this the wrong way. Maybe, all art forms are replication of the human experience. Maybe the human experience is the only true art form and the rest are just echoes, vain attempts to replicate and/or communicate that experience.  Although, under this line of thought, perhaps the term should be changed to simply being alive, as humans may not be the only beings capable of creating art.

Is art just an attempt to capture the experience of being alive?