Art or Obscenity?

pro_gnostic_8

I would be interested to know if any of you have an opinion on the ethics of Prof van Hagan's "show" which took place in London this evening.

Briefly, van Hagan carried out the first public autopsy in the UK since 1830 before a sold-out audience of 500 people at £12 a head. Internal organs of the corpse were to be passed around the audience on platters.

Is this a case of "Art" breaking one of the society's last taboo's (disrespect to the dead), or a sick entertainment that is morally derelict and insulting to human dignity?

It had been mooted that the police might raid the auditorium, but at the time of posting I cannot confirm if they did so.

DadaKopf

Probably if you said to von Hagens that his show was not art and was obscene, he'd probably ask you whether you think the human body is beautiful or not? If you say 'yes', then you have to view his show as art on some level.

Victor

Perhaps it is art, but that doesn't mean it isn't desecration. Isn't some child porn art? Or snuff movies? Whats next a video of an execution or murder as "art"?

Thomas from Presence

To be honest when your dead the last concern you should have is whats happening to your body (its worm food anyway). In past times and cultures it was disrespectful NOT to eat a relatives corpse. These things are all relative.

My only concern was if the persons relatives had a problem with it but evidently they do not. I've always been kinda curious as to what all the bits inside look like and what they're about but cruel and just CAO kept me away from medicine.

The spectacle isn't just educational it has the power to strip away unnecessary taboos! Corpse worship and edification is far more weird to me. (Lenins tomb springs to mind)

neuro-praxis

It's not art. I feel strongly about that. Something was not created. A mess was made, maybe. I don't know if I'd call it obscene exactly though.

It is, perhaps, somewhat ignoble to make money by publicly dissecting the human body.

I think the human body definitely is beautiful: I really like life drawing and sculpture and so on, but is it beautiful to tear it up in public for money?

You could not call it art, by any stretch of the imagination. The dude that dissected that body cannot possibly take any credit for the beauty of the body.

How we view the dead body is a matter of culture. In some cultures they stilleat their dead, and would be horrified at the prospect of putting the body into a box to go into the ground to rot. But this has nothing to do with moneymaking or entertainment.

I would suggest that the "taboo" as Thomas from Presence puts it lies in the motive as opposed to the actual action. There is a difference between respecting social and cultural norms and being subject to useless taboos.

Hrm. I don't know. I'd be inclined to agree with Victor on this one methinks.

This reminds me of the technology that has been developed whereby face transplants (from dead people) can now be used (say on burn victims). The only problem remaining now is the ethical one.

tribble

OT's (Occupational Therapists) in Trinity Slice and Dice Human Bodies all the time. They have to, it's part of the course.

What's different about that?

b:rolleyes:

Terminator

Anyone who thinks of Prof van Hagan's work as Art is seriously missing the point.

Also, provided he has permission from his subject then the work has value and cannot be seen as morally wrong.

Anyone who has the opportunity to experience it should count themselves fortunate.

I watched it last night and was awe-struck.

DadaKopf

Just curious but has anyone actually heard von Hagens call the public autopsy "a work of art"? I haven't.

Personally, I haven't a problem with it but I can understand how people would see it as morally corrupt. The only thing that makes me feel uneasy about the public autopsy and von Hagen's exhibition is that I think it's past its sell-by-date.

The fact that we're already aware how amazing the human body is makes me think that, rather than the autopsy being 'art', the autopsy is just pointless. Von Hagens is obviously trying to convince us of the importance of the history and tradition of the anatomist's profession. However, as far as I'm aware, dissections were not public and certainly weren't ticketed - they were open to members of specific guilds. I see von Hagens' works not so much as repulsive or even objectionable but simply as a pointless and vapid objectification of the human body. I'm not so convinced that von Hagens provokes awe at the human body, I think he provokes nothing at all. That's the worst thing about it.

I don't think it's art. I don't think it's not art. I'd like to hear someone's argument for von Hagens' autopsy and exhibition qualifying as art.

pro_gnostic_8

Thank you all for your comments, each of which was very interesting. In general I am in agreement with your views.

My opinion would be broadly that as expressed by Victor. This "shock-perfromance" is pushing the envelope......indeed, it has crossed the boundary of acceptable norms. I do believe that the demeaning and degradation of any human (alive or dead) diminishes all of us. That this was done as entertainment for monetary gain makes it all the more repugnant.

Of course, it isn't art by any stretch of the imagination. As some dead poet said "Art is Beauty; Beauty Art". There is nothing remotely beautiful about a corpse deconstructed into a mess of meat by scalpels and knives. Consequently there can be no "Art" in this. Neither can it be construed as educational since such information can be gleaned from any number of biology/medical textbooks. Simply, it would appear that this was a pandering to ghoulish and disturbed voyeurism.

Incidentally, the exhibition Dadakopf is referring to is a von Hagan "show" touring Europe (currently based in London until February) which consists of displays of cadavers and skeletons in various poses. The words "promo" and "publicity" in connection with the autopsy spring to mind.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by DadaKopf


The fact that we're already aware how amazing the human body is makes me think that, rather than the autopsy being 'art', the autopsy is just pointless. Von Hagens is obviously trying to convince us of the importance of the history and tradition of the anatomist's profession. However, as far as I'm aware, dissections were not public and certainly weren't ticketed - they were open to members of specific guilds. I see von Hagens' works not so much as repulsive or even objectionable but simply as a pointless and vapid objectification of the human body.

The above is absolutely correct. I, too, consider it to be a pointless exercise. However, in the world we live in, "pointless" endeavours invariably do have some purpose.........e.g. self-publicity, pursuit of notoriety or finacial gain.

BTW, I did read a von Hagan self-description of himself as an "artist" exploring the "confines and complexities of life"?????

DadaKopf

Of course, it isn't art by any stretch of the imagination. As some dead poet said "Art is Beauty; Beauty Art". There is nothing remotely beautiful about a corpse deconstructed into a mess of meat by scalpels and knives. Consequently there can be no "Art" in this. Neither can it be construed as educational since such information can be gleaned from any number of biology/medical textbooks. Simply, it would appear that this was a pandering to ghoulish and disturbed voyeurism.

Beauty is a very subjective matter. If art is beauty, and vice versa, then art is a very subjective matter. Of course it is. Perhaps the only thing that truly characterises art in any objective sense is 'craft'. There's at least evidence of that.

I mean, why should Rembrandt's The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Tulp, Soutine's Cacass of Beef or Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living differ from the anatomist's craft?

In creating art, often times, something is destroyed in order for something to be created. As Bakunin said, "destruction is also a creative force". The public dissection was an act of destruction. But a destruction of what?

The more I think about von Hagens' public dissection, the more I understand what it's really about. It's about democracy of knowledge and ideas. As it says on the Bodyworlds website:

"In the 16th century, Anatomical Theatres where public autopsies were performed, started to open all over Europe. In these theatres, the anatomy of the human body was shown to a lay audience. In London, temporary anatomical theaters were constructed, with the last one taking place around the year 1830. After 200 years of sharing the wonders of the human body with non-professionals, autopsies became increasingly confined to an exclusive medical elite. Today only medical students and professionals are privileged to attend."

I think what all this is hinting at is the way in which our attitudes towards science and knowledge have changed. It's often been commented that 19th century elites like the medical profession (eg. the Royal College of Surgeons) began to exclude the public so that they attained a certain power over society (to do this, they developed their own vocabularies (eg. 'legalese') and rituals). Over time, the professions attained a certain level of moral authority over society and the way this was achieved was by keeping much of their special knowledge secret or mysterious. Knowledge in this sense became a form of power from which most were excluded from and at the mercy of. [see here]

This wasn't the attitude of the Renaissance; knowledge was there for all. Slowly, though, this attitude changed and science tended more to resemble systems of control rather than genuine exploration. The effect that these elite professions have had on public morality and social mores are profound - they inform us about what we see as right and wrong or what we see as beautiful or disgusting.

So the public dissection is, in fact, a comment on the ownership of knowledge and a warning to us all that we've lost our way. Von Hagens' aim is to destroy these elite institutions, or at least their exclusivist attitudes (I mean why should we be protected from watching dissections?) and re-create the genuine curiosity and excitement of the Renaissance. Deep down, I presume von Hagens sees himself as a modern Humanist. So then we get back to the 'but-is-it-art?' question.

I think his statement could be made more eloquently, and probably by someone else.

Basically, my criticism of him is I think it's boring. That's the greatest crime of all.

Shinji

Or, of course, one could believe what the man himself says; that this, and his Body Works exhibition, are designed to educate the public about anatomy - an area which most people actually know sod all about.

I found both the autopsy and the exhibition to be fascinating, educational and thought-provoking. I don't consider either of them to be art or entertainment, as such - but rather as education, leveraging the platforms of art and entertainment to provide that education because frankly, most people aren't interested in learning unless it's dressed up as entertainment.

For all his over analysis of it, Dadakopf is correct - it IS about democracy of knowledge and ideas, although it's not an attempt to make a statement about this - rather it's a very honest attempt to actually DO something about it. In fact, it isn't hard to arrive at this conclusion, given that von Hagen has said exactly the same thing himself in many interviews with newspapers, scientific journals and so on.

No, it's not art.

It's education. A look inside the human body - messy, unpleasant but strangely beautiful in its awe-inspiring complexity. Perhaps more important, a look at the ravages we wreak on our own bodies throughout the course of our lives. You can argue that this information is available in text books, and that much is true - but there is no better education in this kind of thing than the viscereal reality of it.

DadaKopf

There was another autopsy/dissection exhibition in Britain last year. It comprised of a collection of paintings and maybe some sculptures of humans in various stages of dissection. They were paintings and sculptures - products of craft - and were most certainly art. Some of the images were profoundly more arresting and disturbing than the public dissection but for some reason, it escaped controversy.

I think the question of 'but is it art?' will continue to apply to von Hagens' work. This is probably because, well, if he's harking back to the Renaissance, the whole notion of dissection is indelibly connected with art. It's probably also because of the way he actually displays the plastinated cadavers - I think one is of a plastinated rider on top of a plastinated horse. The presentation is, let's say, not clinical and it's therefore not solely educational.

Clearly, von Hagens is trying to inspire visitors - educate them, yes, but he's trying to fill them with wonder. Wonder is a feeling intimately connected with ideas of beauty and beauty is conneced with art. There's a craft involved in von Hagens' exhibits so the debate will continue. That's the best bit about it: people are actually talking about it and learning in the process.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by DadaKopf

The more I think about von Hagens' public dissection, the more I understand what it's really about. It's about democracy of knowledge and ideas.

But there never was as much democratisation of knowledge in this area as there is today. Today a far greater percent of the population has access to anatomical textbooks.................. internet info on this subject is encyclopaedic. Hell, even 3D bodymaps are readily available on CD-ROM that are much more instructional than any attendance at a dissection. von Hagan alluding to a pro bono publica motive to justify his autopsy is just not valid.

Perhaps it is that societal morality has moved on from the period when these public autopsies were acceptable. Back then, less value or respect was accorded to human dignity in life or in death. It was also considered a suitable Sunday afternoon recreation to visit the local "Lunatic Asylum" to laugh at the unfortunate inmates; this was also promoted as being educational benefit. Nowadays, such insensitivity would be anathema ............ as should public autopsies that tittilate and pander to the darker side of human nature.

I accept when you say that medical people wish to maintain a closed shop and do cast a cloak of inaccessability about their procedures. Same applies to most professions I think -- Law, Banking etc. All are a cabal of more or lesser degree.

DadaKopf

Back then, less value or respect was accorded to human dignity in life or in death

That's not particularly true. Early public dissections, which usually took place in winter-time, often had to be cancelled because of a lack of corpses. There was a lack of corpses because the only corpses permissible for dissection at the time were executed criminals - they were already going to hell. This equates to a conception of the dignity of the individual. Great concern was taken over these matters until the mid to late Enlightenment when materialism began to push out religious superstitions.

I don't think we can say that our ancestors had a greater or lesser respect for human life - it's just that the dominant belief/value system accorded different permissions.

But there never was as much democratisation of knowledge in this area as there is today. Today a far greater percent of the population has access to anatomical textbooks...

In relation to old knowledge, well, yeah. But new knowledge becomes currency and the scarcer and more useful it is, the more it's protected. Now specialist knowledge is patented, trade secrets are kept and money is made. The whole process is repeating itself still, the goals have shifted.

In a sense, it's only by looking back at the climate of the Renaissance that we can begin to examine our attitudes today and they have indeed changed. We've even lost the sense of tactility, for example. A child learns through touch, which is spontaneous and active; now we learn through more sterile means like television and formal education. We can even comfortably eat meat without ever having to consider the slaughtering process. At least von Hagens' shows reacquaint people with that.

The Lunatic Asylum example is an interesting one. According to Foucault, this was exactly an example of how specialist knowledge (a form of power) masqueraded as care when in fact it was a mechanism for normalisation and control. It's not exactly a mad big conspiracy, just a tendancy that all us human beings have. It's a logic that weaves its way through society. A dad might say to his son on a visit to a 19th century asylum might say: "This is what an abnormal person is, son. This person is sick. You will be healthy as long as you don't become him."

What I like about von Hagens is that, intentionally or not, he's opened up this whole debate - for some. Most other people either continue to be shocked and outraged or, more likely, aren't shocked and outraged and this makes them feel uneasy so they have to reinforce their imposed convictions just to feel good about themselves.

The Corinthian

It is unlikely that this show would have been able to take place without the consent of the corpse - that is to say that the deceased had expressly given permission to be used as an instrument of art. I think it was a year or two ago that, might have been von Hagens again, had a show of sculptures that were created using cadavers, many cut open so as to reveal internal organs. A similar outcry was made and a similar string of macabre voyeurists went to see the show. Nonetheless, the deceased, prior to death, gave permission and apparently von Hagens has no shortage of volunteers for future works either.

The practice of using the dead in art is not new. The bone church in Kutna Hora (Czech Republic), was built in the middle ages, after the town was decimated by the Black Death and is entirely built or decorated with human bones. Numerous necropoli exist throughout Europe, where the dead, skeletal or mummified, are on public display - it’s actually an honour to become one of the so-called cadaveri eccellenti in the catacombs under Palermo. Even in Ireland we have no problem displaying the mummified head of St. Oliver Plunket (Catholicism has had a long historical trade in venerated human remains).

As to the question of whether this is art or not, is debatable. However, I would question von Hagens’ public autopsy as art as it smacks too much of economically motivated sensationalism - effectively a freak show. While the consent of the deceased and its stimulation of debate may salvage it from ethical damnation, calling it art may be going too far.

Given this, a combination of the knee-jerk revulsion and macabre fascination it has invoked here, is amusing in itself. I’ve often observed that it is invariably those most revolted by such things that will inevitably slow down too take a look when passing a road accident.

neuro-praxis

Am I the only one who thinks that the's in it for the money? Not that I'm anti-capitalist...but there are some things that you just don't do for money.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Am I the only one who thinks that the's in it for the money?

Bold girl. You didn't read my post.

Shinji

A similar outcry was made and a similar string of macabre voyeurists went to see the show.

Oh, gee, thanks. I've never been called a macabre voyeurist before, that's definitely a new one.

And there was me thinking I was just fascinated by anatomy and the workings of the human body. I guess the way I found the exhibition to be amazingly educational and informative (the guy is a professor of anatomy by the way, not an artist as such) was just me in denial of my essential macabre voyeurism. Ho hum!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Shinji
I guess the way I found the exhibition to be amazingly educational and informative (the guy is a professor of anatomy by the way, not an artist as such) was just me in denial of my essential macabre voyeurism. Ho hum!

Pretty much. :rolleyes:

pro_gnostic_8

This is so strange ................. never before has it happened that I make such a complete U-turn in mind-set.

The initiation of this thread arose from a sense of outrage at a perceived moral insult to human dignity. Corinthian correctly observed that this was a knee-jerk reaction (all too prevalent nowadays) to an issue which deserves proper consideration and forethought.

Thanks to DadaK and others I've had a total make-over of opinion. I think I now realise and appreciate the deeper underlying message that von Hagens is attempting to convey. I think (after some consideration and guidance on this board) that his work is a statement that in the sanitised/hygienized world in which we live Death, Suffering, Cancer, et al is The taboo. Likewise, he is hinting that all discussion and examination of our own mortality is discouraged and stifled in our "refusal-to-address-inevitability" sterile world. In this society of Shiny Happy People, 2.4 impossibly beautiful kids and a job for life at the bank, maybe von Hagen is pointing us towards a realisation of our impermancy and vulnerability. Yes, maybe this is Art -- much more so than a Damien Hirst pickled sheep, a Picasso abstract or even a Michaelangelo ceiling painting. As Dadakopf suggested, perhaps von Hagens is returning us to a Rennaisance time when there was a tactile, non-unpalatable connectivity with the world ( in all its unpleasant reality, but also beauty) around us.

And yes, I was also mistaken in accusing von Hagens of profiteering from his autopsy/exhibition ......... all Art is prostitution when you think of it -- every artist has to sell his work for day-to-day living expense (except Van Gogh whose art was so ****e that nobody in their right mind would buy it)!

Thinking about it, von Hagens art is surrealistic, yet so .............Real.

ps. this is what makes Boards.ie (and Humanities in particular) so great .... ...the power to educate and change opinion as this thread has done for me.

Ta.

DadaKopf

There's an interview with the man himself here: http://www.artsnet.org.uk/pages/professorgunthervonhagens.html

Samba

It is an Art in some ways, not only did they take the whole body apart i.e. remove the brain but they perform the autopsy in such a manner that they can reconstruct the body to a very convincing form so that the relatives may view the body at an open casket.


This is the aspect of the 'Art of Autopsy' that was mentioned and imo it is an Art.

This was a point that they stressed to the audience, that they should not be afraid of autopsies being performed as they serve for so much medical research and that the body does not remain disfigured

pro_gnostic_8

Ah, for f's sake, this above link is so magnificent!!
Totally illustrates what the man is all about. Without doubt, he is a artist above all others who would claim that soubriquet.
I've downloaded so I can re-read it a couple of more times...... it's actually the nearest thing to a thesis on the "unified theory" of Art/Beauty/Humanity that I've ever come across.

There's more compassion/humanity in this mans little finger than in the entire body of others who would condemn him!

QUOTE

---

Also I want to make a very important point: The dignity of a person who dies is not in the corpse. It is not in the specimen anymore. It is in the deceased, the deceased is the one we have in our mind. If the dignity is in the body then we shouldn't burn the body because we are then burning the dignity. We shouldn't put it in the earth because then it would rotten the dignity. The dignity is in our minds and we have to worship our minds."

---