I don't know how I feel about it.Yes, it's kinda neat, and having dissected cadavers, I do have an appreciation for the techniques required and such. But there's something about the way the bodies are posed that's very disturbing, the juxtaposition of death and art that's very Damien Hirst in a way, but more directly confrontational. Although not novel, the exhibit is fresh (pardon the pun) in its 3-D exploration of the human condition, a stripped, biological indictment of life and its varying effects on the body. Controversies about consent aside, the very idea of a biological display of human curiosities is very carnivalesque, and I suppose that's one of the reason for my inherent uneasiness about the whole thing. To be fair, I've seen old anatomy textbooks with illustrations of Man holding his own skin, or a 'thinker' stripped of his skin to reveal muscles in motion. Still, an illustration of motion is different from actual human remains posed in motion (I'll get back to the posing later). Medical uses of cadavers, although illustrative, are different. The teaching there is less about wonderment about the body, and much more so about practical principles of anatomy and organization (although again, wonderment comes with the territory of having your hands on someone's once beating heart). Secondly, part of the experience has to do with allowing the bodies to eventually decompose, to return to their families. The human condition is realized in this case, whereas plasticized samples of human corpses seem denied of this finality (and the emotional/cultural norms that comes with it), and it's the viewer that's doing the denial.
I say this fully knowing about the canopic jars filled with dead babies floating in formaldehyde in the anatomy lab at the school. Something about that unnerves me too, but the necessity there is about education, and I think the argument can certainly be made here as well. The public does get an educational experience from all of this, and so what if the exhibit people want to pose the bodies so as to get more variety into their 'show'. Maybe it's the posing that disturbs me more; the false life bestowed upon the lifeless seems incongruous with how we think dead people should be:eyes closed, lying flat, and in general, non-confrontational. So is this art? Is it spectacle? Is the 'education' worth the spectacle?
I'm conflicted about it.
pic stolen from here
1 comment:
I saw this when it came to Chicago, and it really surprised me that more people weren't grossed out, leaving, or breaking down at seeing the bodies of the deceased so close up. They make a big deal of the fact that everyone consented to this, but considering that the exhibit includes kids and a 7 months pregnant woman and baby, I don't know . . . Besides, what about the people who end up not as cool-looking statues but as slices? Probably not the dignified eternity they had in mind.
That said, although I didn't feel good about it ethically at all, it was an amazing experience.
Post a Comment