 
Yesterday M.Jean and I went to see Body Worlds 2. It was both utterly predictable and entirely fascinating. I thought of it as an R&D mission, but I don't have anything conclusive to report. At least not yet. A few notes:
The show is really sexist which is distracting and irritating. All the female cadavers are in super-feminine poses: ballet, figure skating, angel, and the so-called "Yoga Lady" could as easily be titled "Doggy Style." feh. Given that the premise of the show is about as essentialist as you can get, the unsophisticated cultural overlay was pretty annoying.
A weird detail is that each display bears a brushed steel placard with Gunther Von Hagens' signature. It's all very 19th century curio-cabinet, which I find kind of groovy and grotesque.
The show is laced with big purple banners carrying quotes from Nietsche, Goethe, Kant, Sartre, and the like. Secular and existential and weirdly comforting.
The dead guy playing baseball is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.
Both M. Jean and I thought we could smell human decay on more than one occasion, and both of us suspected it was just our imagination.
The body parts are really neat and I was not repelled or disgusted. I held a Plastinated human brain in my hand, which felt a tad transgressive. By the end of the exhibit, other (living) people's faces looked the way I felt: thoughtful, mildly deppressed, and mildly confused. Afterwards I felt leaden and tired, as if I'd been watching trashy TV for 12 hours.
A few quotes:
"Societies that lose all sense of reverence for the dead will lose it also for the living."
- Andrew Stuttaford
"What I do is not art, nor is it science,' he says. 'It reaches into artistry but the effect goes beyond education because feelings and emotions are involved."
- Gunther Von Hagens, quoted by Imogen O'Rorke in the Observer.
"It would take a lot of beers for me to be attracted to a skinless woman. So beauty is skin deep and this exhibit proves it. Or does it? There is something profoundly beautiful about the skinless body. I propose that the famous saying should be corrected. Sexy is skin deep whereas beauty goes through to the bone. [...] I do not perceive it as gratuitous exploitation, or even if it is, it is justifiable as it invites us (or invited me at any rate) to confront the unthinkable. There is no snobbery, just an unforgettable and accessible presentation of anatomy and a desire to give knowledge."
- Jim Eadon
Did he get permission from next of kin, etc to use dead loved ones in this manner?
He got permission from the people themselves, or "donors" as the clear plastic memorial plaque at the entrance refers to them.
That's way fucked! Tabloid TV in gallery form. I'm sure he's packing in the crowds. To quote the horror movie title: "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things."
Whatever your ethical position on this specatcle there is no denying that it's a crowd pleaser. Even those who deplore it are compelled to take a peak. I have one friend who claims to have no curiosity about the show whatsoever, and I believe him, but he's a fairly exceptional fellow.
I don't know if I have an ethical position. Mores change and the reanimated dead may eventually be another class of the posthuman to whom we owe courtesy and respect. Exhibits such as this may pave the way.
I'm sort of interested in the sociology of--when does a guy's weirdo hobby rise to a level of craft that institutions can't not support it?
I'm interested in that too. Kitchen table science meets arts & crafts meets capitalist free market.
Related topic: a friend & colleague recently told me about Frederik Ruysch, who's work is described below in a Washington Post article about anatomists:
Frederik Ruysch, Amsterdam's chief instructor of midwives in the late 1600s, took the genre to extremes. Taking advantage of his legal immunity as court doctor and his easy access to stillborns and infant corpses, Ruysch posed the tiny cadavers in grisly dioramas with human and animal body parts. "Dream Anatomy" also offers up a Ruysch image of an embalmed stillborn perched on a cushion. The infant is holding a piece of a lung and windpipe, a ribbon tied neatly around the trachea.
He would likely be arrested for his activities today, but back then the arrogant Ruysch became all the rage, with amazed people traveling from across the continent to see his museum, the first known anatomical museum. Ruysch became a celebrity, says Sappol. Peter the Great of Russia bought the entire museum in 1717 and took it back to St. Petersburg, where much of Ruysch's work resides today.
i thought the show was sexist too. but mostly lame and depressing. i kept looking around at all the people wandering around and thinking, wow, these sculptures show what everyone looks like under their skin. except that not everyone is playing baseball or doing yoga or skateboarding under their skin.
the moment i knew i had to leave the show was when i accidentally stared down the crotch of one of the females and saw a cluster of pubic hair. it made me want to vomit. am i a prude?
i like your blog, sally.
i dont know if you are a prude, but its safe to assume that you are not a lesbian necrophiliac, if that is any comfort.
Steady on, we all know what assume does...
thanks Jennyhead!
An interesting thing to know about Von Hagens is that he used to publicly describe himself as an Artist. (it holds more cachet in Europe, plus playing up the science angle over there would only bring Josef Mengele to mind) That said, it didn't change the facts on the ground, his exhibitions in Europe were total blockbusters for attendance.
I think he adjusted his PR just in the last few years in order to hit the North American market with a minimum of fuss and maximum profit. He knows that he's going to get the big audience here. (might miss out on some Rambo bucks if he calls it art)
Me and the Reverend Earl Chunx tried to get in to the exhibit in Oct. Facing a 2 1/2 hour line up at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon and a hefty $25. admission we gave up. We went to see the movie 'Doom' instead. I wonder what 'The Rock' would look like plastinated?
I went to see this twice, I find it wondrous. The anatomy specimens I learned from were so bleak, looked like greyed out corned beef, and stank of formaldehyde. This work shows the human body as a wonder. I bought the book, and in it, the point is made, that through most of history, the ability to study anatomy from real bodies was restricted to an elite. I had not thought about the differing male/female presentations, but you are right Sally. On the subject of genitals my partner and I saw a youngster of about eight, standing beside his chatting mother, staring with horror right into the vulva of the skater.
It's funny how the sex organs (the men's too, with their pale dangling, exposed testes) still seem like they oughta be private and protected even when the rib cage and skull have been split open and everything inside is on full view.
M. Jean points out that the first Canadian has become a "donor."
Ms. Chapu will be responsible for the cost of transporting her cadaver to a proper facility. The BodyWorlds team will pick up the remainder of the expenses, which Dr. von Hagens said averages approximately $40,000 (U.S.) per body, from start to finish.
In return, the company will reap the financial reward of exhibitions that have been drawing big crowds in Europe and North America. In Toronto, the show is barely half over and has been seen by about 200,000 people.
She'll never know, and neither will her survivors, if she becomes part of a travelling exhibit. According to the company, family members will never spot their loved ones in a public display because the plastination process leaves the exhibits so altered as to be unrecognizable.
Ms. Chapu said that the anonymity of the process is a real draw for her. "It makes it more appealing, I don't do it so people will recognize me. It's not that I want people to say 'Hey, there's Steph.' "
The article also says:
“She [Ms.Chapu] liked the alternative way of dealing with death.”
I suppose I wouldn’t argue that a person shouldn’t have the right to choose how to dispose of her remains, but that’s a significantly different thing from “dealing with death.” Dead is dead, however inventive we may want to be with the next step.
Yesterday I found myself talking about the exhibit to two groups of people. Some Seniors (median age 85) were prepared to seriously consider the range of issues (educational, ethical, artistic, etc.). The other group (median age 50) had a strong aversion to the whole thing. There was an implication, in their reactions, that I was both naive and morally reprehensible for going to see it. Case closed; they couldn't get away from the topic fast enough.
What am I implying, by putting in their ages? Only more questions. My own reactions are still strong, and still fragmentary. Unlike Sally, I found the banners with quotes from philosophers to be annoying rather than comforting. To me it looked like a cheap stab at giving the whole thing some credibility. I must confess, though, to being hypersensitive about public institutional banners. I'm always suspicious of them, whatever the content.
This morning I threw my clothes on over my jammies, to go off to Tim’s. Coat over clothes over pj’s, over skin, over...
I made a comment on the BodyWorlds website about finding the show sexist, and they just emailed me this reply:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your interest in the Body Worlds Exhibition.
We value all suggestions, criticism and praise, as these provide us with important information for improving our work.
Why aren't there more women plastinates in the exhibit?
Sensitive to perceived community concerns, Dr. von Hagens did not want to appear voyeuristic in revealing too many female bodies. He sees himself in the tradition of Renaissance anatomists, whose works traditionally included far more masculine than feminine bodies, since all but the reproductive systems are essentially the same. The musculature of male bodies is generally more pronounced and illustrates more aspects of the muscle system.
The organs on display come primarily from the female body donors. However, since opening the exhibit, Dr. von Hagens has received numerous requests from women visitors to see more examples of female anatomy. Based on this, Dr. von Hagens will add more women plastinates to future exhibits.
"Sensitive to perceived community concerns, Dr. von Hagens did not want to appear voyeuristic."
Oh, how carefully worded!
Were there any plastinated children or infants?
It's interesting that they would construe the sexism numerically. That's the least of it. The "Angel" was the worst one, for me. To lift somebody's dorsal muscles to enable the viewer to observe the spinal column is very different in intent from using the muscle tissue to fabricate cunning little wings.
There's something very 1890's about this whole thing.
If they have people posed doing stuff maybe they should have one of people screwing. It could be in a special "adults only" back room.
Or maybe they should have one of special moments in history. They could have JFK being shot ... only he's already dead! oh the irony!
Maybe for the Toronto edition they could have had some hockey players. "Stick him in the ribs! Ouch!"
Normal Rockwell poses would work well too. Little Jimmie's first trip to the doctor.
"what do you think's wrong with him doctor?"
"Well for starters he died, and then he was plastinated - but haven't we all? Other than that I think he has a boo-boo."
OK I'll stop cackling now over Joester's comments
Was it all "adults only", I was serious with my question about children's bodies being used. If so, did you respond differently to them M.Jean? Sally?
There was one corner, like a little hidden cavern (yes, like a womb), that was kind of a "gestation room." (Quotation marks mine.) I couldn't figure out the sacrosanct ethos of that (given that the "violation" issues were abundant without it), but I didn't really pay it much mind. (I mean, c'mon, there was an upended skateboarder to look at, with a resolutely anti-gravity phallus!)
Outside of the entrance to that there was a series of little highly techno-looking display blocks, showing the development of the foetus from one week up to about eight, I think. The little blocks were lit like nothing so much as a high-end jewellery display. The initial foetuses looked like little white smears, but had toes by the last one.
As for kids, there was one of the large "posed" displays of two versions of a man (I think, one his musculature, and behind that his skeleton). A child's skeleton was walking between them, holding the two "adults" one by each hand. I found the coziness of that pretty offensive. For some reason I kept thinking it was annoyingly anthropomorphic. (!)
There wasn't any age restriction on entry. I saw one grandma who didn't think her grandson (about 6 years old) should be seeing the exhibit, but the grandad took him by the hand, and said "let's go look at all these creepy things," so off they went, while she looked helplessly resigned.
Another very appealing father and son duo were taking in the Science of it. This kid was about 10 or 12, I'd guess. The dad took great pains to make sure the kid was learning stuff. He read the descriptions aloud, and they discussed muscles and their attachments. The kid was partly interested, and partly not. He looked too hot; he should have taken off his toque and coat.
Impossible to tell, of course, what other people are thinking, unless they verbalize it like the grandma did, but I got the impression that the kids weren't as sobered by the cultural/theoretical/oh-my-god-should-this-be-happening issues as some of the adults appeared to be.
And now, I'll have to stop cackling over M.Jean's comments.
Thanks. (I should have gone with the two of you. My mistake.)
We neglected to mention the animals. They had a horse and two camels and some other sundry creatures like chickens. No cats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
I've been reading about the uncanny valley lately. Zombies are at the very bottom of the trough (and let's face it this show was all about zombies).
Wouldn't it be great if one of the dudes was posed eating another one's brains? Sweet! That'd scare the kiddies! I would go see that show in a heartbeat (so to speak).
Was there a cafeteria there? Were they serving hamburger meat? Chicken wings? Were there home kits for plastinating your dead pet in the gift shop?
(Idamnhimtohellforbeingfunnierthanme)
Hey, no skin off my nose.
Oh yeah, the camels. I was going along looking at everything, with a certain insousiance; I mean, the simple act of looking at innards wasn't in and of itself grossing me out, but then I was Whapped by how profoundly uninteresting the camel was. So I realized that the "real dead human" aspect of it was after all having an effect. Can't decide if that's because I was identifying (which I certainly was), or if there was something extra and maybe voyeuristic going on.
And, I just figured out the rampant penis: centrifugal force. Although that doesn't explain the perky breasts of Reubens' recumbent nudes. Unless maybe those divans were spinning.
This whole thing kind of reminds me of Christo's "The Gates" in a weird deja vu kind of way, except rather than covering things up, things are being uncovered and revealed -- sort of like one of Gehry's early works or even Louis B. Kahn's Bangladesh Parliament Buildings.
Malcolm R.
i found this looking for a different "caught looking." elephant-man-ie.
Woops - I meant to say Louis I. Kahn. Mixed him up with Louis B. Kahn, the wannabe tap-dancing showman who fell flat on his face in that 1930s classic... what was it called?
"She's A Cadaver (And I Gotta Have Her)" The Pagans, 1977
Christo and JC, yeah. The back story, the presentation, the entrepreneurial snowjob struck me as very similar.
oh yes, but look at the way if this muscle here is bunched up, it pulls on that bone there, always on the other bone, not on the one it starts on, and it makes that one come closer, or how the fingers are almost entirely controlled by arm muscles, not hand muscles.
And look at how all the nerves that carry the instructions from the brain to those hands have to squeeze through such a small space to get from the neck to the arm, squished up against all the veins and arteries too.
and don't miss my very favourite muscle, sartorius
Fess up Sally, you're a total sucker for galenagalaxian's infectious discovery channel attitude towards this spectacle.
(I am.)
I think what I'm really coming away with from all this is the term "plastinated."
heh heh
I agree Tom, but it's not just the word, it's the idea. I'm not particularily squeemish about this stuff but when I die I'd prefer not to be dipped in the most toxic shit known to man. Ironically, I do want to be posed doing a kickflip olly 360, so you can see how I'm conflicted.
"Fess up Sally..."
Oooh, yes. There's no denying that those bodies are super groovy. I was utterly 100% absorbed and fascinated for the first hour. I did wish I had more of the anatomical knowledge that galengalaxian apparently has. I just tried to follow smart people around and eavesdrop while they pointed stuff out to each other. First thing I did when I got home was dig out my anatomy book.
I am not opposed to this show at all. But I am still confused by it. If this is a tragic desecration, consensual post-mortem manipulation ranks pretty dang low on the list of tragic desecrations that humans have inflicted (are inflicting) on each other. As I said to M. Jean, this hacking into cadavers may be invasive, but it would've been a lot more invasive if the person was alive! This isn't Rawanda, or Abu Ghraib, or even 9-11. It's a nifty harmless spectacle so sit back and enjoy it. This is my attitude, and I don't regret the $25 one bit. But this attitude of mine is decadent in the extreme. When I go to sleep at night I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that nobody is gonna bust into the house with guns and take my boyfriend away and torture him and hold him in some disgusting jail for months on end and maybe kill him. Is my willing acceptance of the violations in BodyWorld a symptom of the fact that I belong to an entertainment culture with a high standard of living, an assumption of personal physical safety, and an increasing desensitisation to the deep disrespect and dehumanisation of others? And if so, what the hell would I do about it? Campaigning against plastination would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. But it kind of makes me wonder, hey what happened to the horse?
The term "plastination" seems so old-fashioned-futuristic. That's why, when I initially made this BodyWorld post, I also posted this.
Before we leave this, I should probably register how much I liked the exhibit, since so far I've done nothing but carp. I was surprisingly informed about anatomy, for one thing, and I love the aftershocks, and this state of psychic excitation.
If we're seriously talking little angel wings made out of latissimus dorsi then my reason for not going (if it came to my town) would be squeamish intolerance for the kitsch factor.
I forgot to ask, when I saw footage of this stuff in Europe several years ago (just because I am overseas, doesn't mean I'm going to stop watching TV), there was a plastic lady in a striding pose (just like Mary Tyler Moore!) with flayed skin appearing to blow in the wind. Was she there?
This was the point where he was claiming the Artist position, so what Sally called "unsophisticated cultural overlay", I called twee, and I dismissed him on aesthetic grounds. But, he did succeed once, for me, in an artistic context. Before I knew who he was, I was in a contemporary gallery in Berlin. The show included Goya's Horrors of war, some Chapman brothers stuff, and this life size plastic model of a man horribly wounded and lying in a pool of plastic blood. I thought it was, technically, an impressive fabrication and as I was staring at it, I was overcome with unbelievable nausea, and thought I was going to pass out. (I was told by my companion that my face was totally green)
Anyway, that was my first and last real encounter with a Von Hagens body, so I do wonder if I would respond to it differently in a science centre setting. (wasn't going to take the risk of puking all over a very hung-over Sally and M.Jean on that particular outing)
"life size plastic model of a man horribly wounded and lying in a pool of plastic blood"
plastinated man, with muscles revealed, all that, or some kind of realistic Duane Hanson-with-gore thing?
Yeah, Tom, the angel wings are serious, and there was other stuff in that category. An "exploded view" (quotation marks his), with every little body part hung by a wire, so it looked like an incredibly complex marionette.
No, L.M. the woman in the breeze wasn't there. And I can't tell you how grateful I am that you spared us your puke.
As I remember it, Tom, the work was closer to Duane Hanson, but with gore and obviously better crafted, (how could it not be)
In comparison, Hanson's work looks like it was made of paper mache by 12 year old girls.
You are most welcome, M.Jean.
I like to think that not vomiting on people is an important social grace.
This also reminds me of a recent exhibition I saw. Some guy had purchased an old museum building in some small town, and, I was told, found a bunch of artefacts packed up in the back room.
The stuff was put on display and I did struggle with a few ethical issues such as "Is it so wrong of me to want that stuffed leopard?".
Among some shrunken heads was one guy with a distinct head of red hair and a itty bitty red moustache. (made me laugh for some reason) There was also an ancient Incan Mummy. I overheard some guy making a fuss to the gallery owner about the mummy asking how he would feel if his child's body was displayed in a glass case. (it wasn't a child's body, it was small, but not that small) I thought his outrage was a bit disingenuous, and I prefered to save my anger for those ancient Incas.
Years ago a friend was a docent at the Dallas Museum of Art when a show of ancient artifacts came through. I forget which ancient culture. Anyway, the show had a much-advertised room with some mummies. A group of schoolkids visited the exhibit and my friend had to restrain some of them while their teacher waited for them all to assemble before going into the mummy room. She grabbed one little boy and happened to put her hand on his upper chest. She said his heart was beating like a jackhammer.
Kristin is doing a performance tonight where she is having the audience get zombie makeovers. It's oddly paralleling this thread even though she's too busy to read it. I, on the other hand, have a history of physics exam on Saturday, which bears no relation to this thread what so ever. Yet I read on. The irony abounds.
Mummies, like dinosaurs, are intoxicating for kids. They are one of those things that turn out to be real. Dragons no, but their cousin the dinosaur yes. Same with zombies and mummies. Wizards no witches yes. It's a complex world.
Are we finished with this one?
(There's a blizzard on right now, just asking)
(we've all stayed surprisingly on topic this time)
said the prime suspect topic-strayer.
"Are we finished with this one?"
You got something better? Bring it on!
(tiny voice) no
o.k. i'l venture into off topic territory a bit. I was in grade 5 (i think it was 5) and the 'Treasures of Tutankhamen' was in town. The upper grades at my school all had to do a project on ancient Egypt and the kids with the best marks on their projects got to go to the Tutankhamen exhibit. I did mine on mummification. I sacrificed my sisters barbie doll for my display, cutting off all the hair and wrapping the whole thing in paper towels with little plastic beads and coins enshrouded with the doll. I wrote in great detail about the process of pulling the brain out through the nose. I don't think my sister ever forgave me for 'killing' her barbie but i got to go to the Tutankhamen show and it was the coolest thing ever.
Kids love hearing about brains being pulled out the nose.
Do you remember the t-shirts that said Don't touch my Tuts
Oh ya, of course it was a bit risque at my tender age. I do remember the King Tut song by Steve Martin. I used to love that song......king tut na na na na na na na na na... born in babylona... something, something something.....
oh ya...moved to arizona!
He had a condo made of stone - a.
King Tut? Stone? Architecture? We're back to Louis I. Kahn again...
And what lovely buildings he designed!
lovely buildings indeed but i dont get the connection. condo made of stone-a connection?
Not sure about the connection Bill, except that for some reason this thread has made us all feel down right chatty.
How's the studying going for that physics test Joester?
King tut had a condo made of stone-a. The "a" is so it rhymes with Arizona.
Physics is great. Planck's constant h is the current topic I'm trying to get my head around. Dude discovered photons but thought it was just a model and not real.
i know-a / but couldnt connect it to kahn.
His kids were home alone-a.
lol
"Arizona: take off your rainbow shades." - Mark Lindsay
Why are there so many
songs about rainbows
and what's on the other side
Rainbows are visions
but only illusions
Rainbows have nothing to hide.......
Some day, we'll find it
the rainbow connection
the lovers, the dreamers and me
70
Psalm 71
4 Deliver me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked,
from the grasp of evil and cruel men.......
Sally -- are you interested in including your web-site in the
Web-sites in the plastination legislation and information network:
I'm nominating the following:
http://92122.blogspot.com (YOU CAN REACH ME HERE)
http://www.nobodies4profit.org/
http://dignityinboston.googlepages.com/cities
http://www.seattlechatclub.org/BodiesNot.html
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/comment/34208/
|
Yesterday M.Jean and I went to see Body Worlds 2. It was both utterly predictable and entirely fascinating. I thought of it as an R&D mission, but I don't have anything conclusive to report. At least not yet. A few notes:
The show is really sexist which is distracting and irritating. All the female cadavers are in super-feminine poses: ballet, figure skating, angel, and the so-called "Yoga Lady" could as easily be titled "Doggy Style." feh. Given that the premise of the show is about as essentialist as you can get, the unsophisticated cultural overlay was pretty annoying.
A weird detail is that each display bears a brushed steel placard with Gunther Von Hagens' signature. It's all very 19th century curio-cabinet, which I find kind of groovy and grotesque.
The show is laced with big purple banners carrying quotes from Nietsche, Goethe, Kant, Sartre, and the like. Secular and existential and weirdly comforting.
The dead guy playing baseball is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen.
Both M. Jean and I thought we could smell human decay on more than one occasion, and both of us suspected it was just our imagination.
The body parts are really neat and I was not repelled or disgusted. I held a Plastinated human brain in my hand, which felt a tad transgressive. By the end of the exhibit, other (living) people's faces looked the way I felt: thoughtful, mildly deppressed, and mildly confused. Afterwards I felt leaden and tired, as if I'd been watching trashy TV for 12 hours.
A few quotes:
- sally mckay 12-12-2005 7:33 pm
Did he get permission from next of kin, etc to use dead loved ones in this manner?
- tom moody 12-12-2005 8:20 pm
He got permission from the people themselves, or "donors" as the clear plastic memorial plaque at the entrance refers to them.
- sally mckay 12-12-2005 9:22 pm
That's way fucked! Tabloid TV in gallery form. I'm sure he's packing in the crowds. To quote the horror movie title: "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things."
- tom moody 12-12-2005 9:39 pm
Whatever your ethical position on this specatcle there is no denying that it's a crowd pleaser. Even those who deplore it are compelled to take a peak. I have one friend who claims to have no curiosity about the show whatsoever, and I believe him, but he's a fairly exceptional fellow.
- sally mckay 12-12-2005 9:49 pm
I don't know if I have an ethical position. Mores change and the reanimated dead may eventually be another class of the posthuman to whom we owe courtesy and respect. Exhibits such as this may pave the way.
I'm sort of interested in the sociology of--when does a guy's weirdo hobby rise to a level of craft that institutions can't not support it?
- tom moody 12-12-2005 10:20 pm
I'm interested in that too. Kitchen table science meets arts & crafts meets capitalist free market.
Related topic: a friend & colleague recently told me about Frederik Ruysch, who's work is described below in a Washington Post article about anatomists:
- sally mckay 12-12-2005 11:35 pm
i thought the show was sexist too. but mostly lame and depressing. i kept looking around at all the people wandering around and thinking, wow, these sculptures show what everyone looks like under their skin. except that not everyone is playing baseball or doing yoga or skateboarding under their skin.
the moment i knew i had to leave the show was when i accidentally stared down the crotch of one of the females and saw a cluster of pubic hair. it made me want to vomit. am i a prude?
i like your blog, sally.
- jennyhead (guest) 12-13-2005 7:21 am
i dont know if you are a prude, but its safe to assume that you are not a lesbian necrophiliac, if that is any comfort.
- dave 12-13-2005 7:51 am
Steady on, we all know what assume does...
thanks Jennyhead!
- sally mckay 12-13-2005 4:25 pm
An interesting thing to know about Von Hagens is that he used to publicly describe himself as an Artist. (it holds more cachet in Europe, plus playing up the science angle over there would only bring Josef Mengele to mind) That said, it didn't change the facts on the ground, his exhibitions in Europe were total blockbusters for attendance.
I think he adjusted his PR just in the last few years in order to hit the North American market with a minimum of fuss and maximum profit. He knows that he's going to get the big audience here. (might miss out on some Rambo bucks if he calls it art)
- L.M. 12-13-2005 9:21 pm
Me and the Reverend Earl Chunx tried to get in to the exhibit in Oct. Facing a 2 1/2 hour line up at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon and a hefty $25. admission we gave up. We went to see the movie 'Doom' instead. I wonder what 'The Rock' would look like plastinated?
- mnobody (guest) 12-14-2005 1:07 am
I went to see this twice, I find it wondrous. The anatomy specimens I learned from were so bleak, looked like greyed out corned beef, and stank of formaldehyde. This work shows the human body as a wonder. I bought the book, and in it, the point is made, that through most of history, the ability to study anatomy from real bodies was restricted to an elite. I had not thought about the differing male/female presentations, but you are right Sally. On the subject of genitals my partner and I saw a youngster of about eight, standing beside his chatting mother, staring with horror right into the vulva of the skater.
- galenagalaxian 12-14-2005 4:57 am
It's funny how the sex organs (the men's too, with their pale dangling, exposed testes) still seem like they oughta be private and protected even when the rib cage and skull have been split open and everything inside is on full view.
M. Jean points out that the first Canadian has become a "donor."
- sally mckay 12-14-2005 3:56 pm
The article also says:
“She [Ms.Chapu] liked the alternative way of dealing with death.”
I suppose I wouldn’t argue that a person shouldn’t have the right to choose how to dispose of her remains, but that’s a significantly different thing from “dealing with death.” Dead is dead, however inventive we may want to be with the next step.
Yesterday I found myself talking about the exhibit to two groups of people. Some Seniors (median age 85) were prepared to seriously consider the range of issues (educational, ethical, artistic, etc.). The other group (median age 50) had a strong aversion to the whole thing. There was an implication, in their reactions, that I was both naive and morally reprehensible for going to see it. Case closed; they couldn't get away from the topic fast enough.
What am I implying, by putting in their ages? Only more questions. My own reactions are still strong, and still fragmentary. Unlike Sally, I found the banners with quotes from philosophers to be annoying rather than comforting. To me it looked like a cheap stab at giving the whole thing some credibility. I must confess, though, to being hypersensitive about public institutional banners. I'm always suspicious of them, whatever the content.
This morning I threw my clothes on over my jammies, to go off to Tim’s. Coat over clothes over pj’s, over skin, over...
- M.Jean 12-14-2005 5:38 pm
I made a comment on the BodyWorlds website about finding the show sexist, and they just emailed me this reply:
- sally mckay 12-14-2005 6:19 pm
"Sensitive to perceived community concerns, Dr. von Hagens did not want to appear voyeuristic."
Oh, how carefully worded!
- M.Jean 12-14-2005 6:36 pm
Were there any plastinated children or infants?
- L.M. 12-14-2005 8:10 pm
It's interesting that they would construe the sexism numerically. That's the least of it. The "Angel" was the worst one, for me. To lift somebody's dorsal muscles to enable the viewer to observe the spinal column is very different in intent from using the muscle tissue to fabricate cunning little wings.
- M.Jean 12-14-2005 8:10 pm
There's something very 1890's about this whole thing.
If they have people posed doing stuff maybe they should have one of people screwing. It could be in a special "adults only" back room.
Or maybe they should have one of special moments in history. They could have JFK being shot ... only he's already dead! oh the irony!
Maybe for the Toronto edition they could have had some hockey players. "Stick him in the ribs! Ouch!"
Normal Rockwell poses would work well too. Little Jimmie's first trip to the doctor.
"what do you think's wrong with him doctor?"
"Well for starters he died, and then he was plastinated - but haven't we all? Other than that I think he has a boo-boo."
- joester 12-14-2005 9:30 pm
OK I'll stop cackling now over Joester's comments
Was it all "adults only", I was serious with my question about children's bodies being used. If so, did you respond differently to them M.Jean? Sally?
- L.M. 12-14-2005 10:26 pm
There was one corner, like a little hidden cavern (yes, like a womb), that was kind of a "gestation room." (Quotation marks mine.) I couldn't figure out the sacrosanct ethos of that (given that the "violation" issues were abundant without it), but I didn't really pay it much mind. (I mean, c'mon, there was an upended skateboarder to look at, with a resolutely anti-gravity phallus!)
Outside of the entrance to that there was a series of little highly techno-looking display blocks, showing the development of the foetus from one week up to about eight, I think. The little blocks were lit like nothing so much as a high-end jewellery display. The initial foetuses looked like little white smears, but had toes by the last one.
As for kids, there was one of the large "posed" displays of two versions of a man (I think, one his musculature, and behind that his skeleton). A child's skeleton was walking between them, holding the two "adults" one by each hand. I found the coziness of that pretty offensive. For some reason I kept thinking it was annoyingly anthropomorphic. (!)
There wasn't any age restriction on entry. I saw one grandma who didn't think her grandson (about 6 years old) should be seeing the exhibit, but the grandad took him by the hand, and said "let's go look at all these creepy things," so off they went, while she looked helplessly resigned.
Another very appealing father and son duo were taking in the Science of it. This kid was about 10 or 12, I'd guess. The dad took great pains to make sure the kid was learning stuff. He read the descriptions aloud, and they discussed muscles and their attachments. The kid was partly interested, and partly not. He looked too hot; he should have taken off his toque and coat.
Impossible to tell, of course, what other people are thinking, unless they verbalize it like the grandma did, but I got the impression that the kids weren't as sobered by the cultural/theoretical/oh-my-god-should-this-be-happening issues as some of the adults appeared to be.
- M.Jean 12-14-2005 10:48 pm
And now, I'll have to stop cackling over M.Jean's comments.
Thanks. (I should have gone with the two of you. My mistake.)
- L.M. 12-14-2005 11:03 pm
We neglected to mention the animals. They had a horse and two camels and some other sundry creatures like chickens. No cats.
- sally mckay 12-14-2005 11:24 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
I've been reading about the uncanny valley lately. Zombies are at the very bottom of the trough (and let's face it this show was all about zombies).
Wouldn't it be great if one of the dudes was posed eating another one's brains? Sweet! That'd scare the kiddies! I would go see that show in a heartbeat (so to speak).
Was there a cafeteria there? Were they serving hamburger meat? Chicken wings? Were there home kits for plastinating your dead pet in the gift shop?
- joester 12-14-2005 11:35 pm
(Idamnhimtohellforbeingfunnierthanme)
- L.M. 12-14-2005 11:39 pm
Hey, no skin off my nose.
- joester 12-14-2005 11:48 pm
Oh yeah, the camels. I was going along looking at everything, with a certain insousiance; I mean, the simple act of looking at innards wasn't in and of itself grossing me out, but then I was Whapped by how profoundly uninteresting the camel was. So I realized that the "real dead human" aspect of it was after all having an effect. Can't decide if that's because I was identifying (which I certainly was), or if there was something extra and maybe voyeuristic going on.
And, I just figured out the rampant penis: centrifugal force. Although that doesn't explain the perky breasts of Reubens' recumbent nudes. Unless maybe those divans were spinning.
- M.Jean 12-15-2005 12:01 am
This whole thing kind of reminds me of Christo's "The Gates" in a weird deja vu kind of way, except rather than covering things up, things are being uncovered and revealed -- sort of like one of Gehry's early works or even Louis B. Kahn's Bangladesh Parliament Buildings.
Malcolm R.
- anonymous (guest) 12-15-2005 12:09 am
i found this looking for a different "caught looking." elephant-man-ie.
- bill 12-15-2005 12:11 am
Woops - I meant to say Louis I. Kahn. Mixed him up with Louis B. Kahn, the wannabe tap-dancing showman who fell flat on his face in that 1930s classic... what was it called?
- anonymous (guest) 12-15-2005 12:14 am
"She's A Cadaver (And I Gotta Have Her)" The Pagans, 1977
- anonymous (guest) 12-15-2005 2:14 am
Christo and JC, yeah. The back story, the presentation, the entrepreneurial snowjob struck me as very similar.
- M.Jean 12-15-2005 3:22 am
oh yes, but look at the way if this muscle here is bunched up, it pulls on that bone there, always on the other bone, not on the one it starts on, and it makes that one come closer, or how the fingers are almost entirely controlled by arm muscles, not hand muscles.
And look at how all the nerves that carry the instructions from the brain to those hands have to squeeze through such a small space to get from the neck to the arm, squished up against all the veins and arteries too.
and don't miss my very favourite muscle, sartorius
- galenagalaxian 12-15-2005 6:30 am
Fess up Sally, you're a total sucker for galenagalaxian's infectious discovery channel attitude towards this spectacle.
(I am.)
- L.M. 12-15-2005 6:38 am
I think what I'm really coming away with from all this is the term "plastinated."
- tom moody 12-15-2005 7:18 am
heh heh
- galenagalaxian 12-15-2005 7:25 am
I agree Tom, but it's not just the word, it's the idea. I'm not particularily squeemish about this stuff but when I die I'd prefer not to be dipped in the most toxic shit known to man. Ironically, I do want to be posed doing a kickflip olly 360, so you can see how I'm conflicted.
- joester 12-15-2005 8:51 am
"Fess up Sally..."
Oooh, yes. There's no denying that those bodies are super groovy. I was utterly 100% absorbed and fascinated for the first hour. I did wish I had more of the anatomical knowledge that galengalaxian apparently has. I just tried to follow smart people around and eavesdrop while they pointed stuff out to each other. First thing I did when I got home was dig out my anatomy book.
I am not opposed to this show at all. But I am still confused by it. If this is a tragic desecration, consensual post-mortem manipulation ranks pretty dang low on the list of tragic desecrations that humans have inflicted (are inflicting) on each other. As I said to M. Jean, this hacking into cadavers may be invasive, but it would've been a lot more invasive if the person was alive! This isn't Rawanda, or Abu Ghraib, or even 9-11. It's a nifty harmless spectacle so sit back and enjoy it. This is my attitude, and I don't regret the $25 one bit. But this attitude of mine is decadent in the extreme. When I go to sleep at night I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that nobody is gonna bust into the house with guns and take my boyfriend away and torture him and hold him in some disgusting jail for months on end and maybe kill him. Is my willing acceptance of the violations in BodyWorld a symptom of the fact that I belong to an entertainment culture with a high standard of living, an assumption of personal physical safety, and an increasing desensitisation to the deep disrespect and dehumanisation of others? And if so, what the hell would I do about it? Campaigning against plastination would be like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. But it kind of makes me wonder, hey what happened to the horse?
- sally mckay 12-15-2005 3:56 pm
The term "plastination" seems so old-fashioned-futuristic. That's why, when I initially made this BodyWorld post, I also posted this.
- sally mckay 12-15-2005 4:43 pm
Before we leave this, I should probably register how much I liked the exhibit, since so far I've done nothing but carp. I was surprisingly informed about anatomy, for one thing, and I love the aftershocks, and this state of psychic excitation.
- M.Jean 12-15-2005 6:43 pm
If we're seriously talking little angel wings made out of latissimus dorsi then my reason for not going (if it came to my town) would be squeamish intolerance for the kitsch factor.
- tom moody 12-15-2005 6:58 pm
I forgot to ask, when I saw footage of this stuff in Europe several years ago (just because I am overseas, doesn't mean I'm going to stop watching TV), there was a plastic lady in a striding pose (just like Mary Tyler Moore!) with flayed skin appearing to blow in the wind. Was she there?
This was the point where he was claiming the Artist position, so what Sally called "unsophisticated cultural overlay", I called twee, and I dismissed him on aesthetic grounds. But, he did succeed once, for me, in an artistic context. Before I knew who he was, I was in a contemporary gallery in Berlin. The show included Goya's Horrors of war, some Chapman brothers stuff, and this life size plastic model of a man horribly wounded and lying in a pool of plastic blood. I thought it was, technically, an impressive fabrication and as I was staring at it, I was overcome with unbelievable nausea, and thought I was going to pass out. (I was told by my companion that my face was totally green)
Anyway, that was my first and last real encounter with a Von Hagens body, so I do wonder if I would respond to it differently in a science centre setting. (wasn't going to take the risk of puking all over a very hung-over Sally and M.Jean on that particular outing)
- L.M. 12-15-2005 7:05 pm
"life size plastic model of a man horribly wounded and lying in a pool of plastic blood"
plastinated man, with muscles revealed, all that, or some kind of realistic Duane Hanson-with-gore thing?
- tom moody 12-15-2005 7:20 pm
Yeah, Tom, the angel wings are serious, and there was other stuff in that category. An "exploded view" (quotation marks his), with every little body part hung by a wire, so it looked like an incredibly complex marionette.
No, L.M. the woman in the breeze wasn't there. And I can't tell you how grateful I am that you spared us your puke.
- M.Jean 12-15-2005 7:21 pm
As I remember it, Tom, the work was closer to Duane Hanson, but with gore and obviously better crafted, (how could it not be)
In comparison, Hanson's work looks like it was made of paper mache by 12 year old girls.
- L.M. 12-15-2005 7:35 pm
You are most welcome, M.Jean.
I like to think that not vomiting on people is an important social grace.
- L.M. 12-15-2005 7:39 pm
This also reminds me of a recent exhibition I saw. Some guy had purchased an old museum building in some small town, and, I was told, found a bunch of artefacts packed up in the back room.
The stuff was put on display and I did struggle with a few ethical issues such as "Is it so wrong of me to want that stuffed leopard?".
Among some shrunken heads was one guy with a distinct head of red hair and a itty bitty red moustache. (made me laugh for some reason) There was also an ancient Incan Mummy. I overheard some guy making a fuss to the gallery owner about the mummy asking how he would feel if his child's body was displayed in a glass case. (it wasn't a child's body, it was small, but not that small) I thought his outrage was a bit disingenuous, and I prefered to save my anger for those ancient Incas.
- L.M. 12-15-2005 8:16 pm
Years ago a friend was a docent at the Dallas Museum of Art when a show of ancient artifacts came through. I forget which ancient culture. Anyway, the show had a much-advertised room with some mummies. A group of schoolkids visited the exhibit and my friend had to restrain some of them while their teacher waited for them all to assemble before going into the mummy room. She grabbed one little boy and happened to put her hand on his upper chest. She said his heart was beating like a jackhammer.
- tom moody 12-15-2005 8:34 pm
Kristin is doing a performance tonight where she is having the audience get zombie makeovers. It's oddly paralleling this thread even though she's too busy to read it. I, on the other hand, have a history of physics exam on Saturday, which bears no relation to this thread what so ever. Yet I read on. The irony abounds.
Mummies, like dinosaurs, are intoxicating for kids. They are one of those things that turn out to be real. Dragons no, but their cousin the dinosaur yes. Same with zombies and mummies. Wizards no witches yes. It's a complex world.
- joester 12-15-2005 9:51 pm
Are we finished with this one?
(There's a blizzard on right now, just asking)
(we've all stayed surprisingly on topic this time)
- L.M. 12-16-2005 12:10 am
said the prime suspect topic-strayer.
- M.Jean 12-16-2005 12:14 am
"Are we finished with this one?"
You got something better? Bring it on!
- sally mckay 12-16-2005 12:20 am
(tiny voice) no
- L.M. 12-16-2005 12:51 am
o.k. i'l venture into off topic territory a bit. I was in grade 5 (i think it was 5) and the 'Treasures of Tutankhamen' was in town. The upper grades at my school all had to do a project on ancient Egypt and the kids with the best marks on their projects got to go to the Tutankhamen exhibit. I did mine on mummification. I sacrificed my sisters barbie doll for my display, cutting off all the hair and wrapping the whole thing in paper towels with little plastic beads and coins enshrouded with the doll. I wrote in great detail about the process of pulling the brain out through the nose. I don't think my sister ever forgave me for 'killing' her barbie but i got to go to the Tutankhamen show and it was the coolest thing ever.
- mnobody (guest) 12-16-2005 1:40 am
Kids love hearing about brains being pulled out the nose.
Do you remember the t-shirts that said Don't touch my Tuts
- L.M. 12-16-2005 2:00 am
Oh ya, of course it was a bit risque at my tender age. I do remember the King Tut song by Steve Martin. I used to love that song......king tut na na na na na na na na na... born in babylona... something, something something.....
- mnobody (guest) 12-16-2005 2:59 am
oh ya...moved to arizona!
- mnobody (guest) 12-16-2005 3:00 am
He had a condo made of stone - a.
- joester 12-16-2005 11:03 am
King Tut? Stone? Architecture? We're back to Louis I. Kahn again...
- anonymous (guest) 12-16-2005 7:32 pm
And what lovely buildings he designed!
- L.M. 12-16-2005 8:00 pm
lovely buildings indeed but i dont get the connection. condo made of stone-a connection?
- bill 12-16-2005 8:21 pm
Not sure about the connection Bill, except that for some reason this thread has made us all feel down right chatty.
How's the studying going for that physics test Joester?
- L.M. 12-17-2005 12:41 am
- sally mckay 12-17-2005 1:56 am
King tut had a condo made of stone-a. The "a" is so it rhymes with Arizona.
Physics is great. Planck's constant h is the current topic I'm trying to get my head around. Dude discovered photons but thought it was just a model and not real.
- joester 12-17-2005 2:25 am
i know-a / but couldnt connect it to kahn.
- bill 12-17-2005 2:57 am
His kids were home alone-a.
- tom moody 12-17-2005 3:00 am
lol
- sally mckay 12-17-2005 7:04 am
"Arizona: take off your rainbow shades." - Mark Lindsay
- sally mckay 12-17-2005 7:05 am
Why are there so many
songs about rainbows
and what's on the other side
Rainbows are visions
but only illusions
Rainbows have nothing to hide.......
Some day, we'll find it
the rainbow connection
the lovers, the dreamers and me
- K. Frog (guest) 12-18-2005 9:00 pm
70
- joester 12-18-2005 9:49 pm
Psalm 71
4 Deliver me, O my God, from the hand of the wicked,
from the grasp of evil and cruel men.......
- rev. earl chunx (guest) 12-18-2005 10:49 pm
Sally -- are you interested in including your web-site in the
Web-sites in the plastination legislation and information network:
I'm nominating the following:
http://92122.blogspot.com (YOU CAN REACH ME HERE)
http://www.nobodies4profit.org/
http://dignityinboston.googlepages.com/cities
http://www.seattlechatclub.org/BodiesNot.html
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/comment/34208/
- Michelle K. Gross (guest) 8-03-2007 5:40 am