Is it Art?
 

These are just some shots from the Body Worlds Art Exhibition put on by Professor Gunther von Hagens. It is made up of over 200 human remains which have been gone through a process known as "plastination" and turned into art. Any thoughts?

another one

"Is it art?"

No, it isn't.

Glad I could clear that up for you. If you need help with anything else, let me know.

Are (were) these Real people?, Were they consulted?, are their families aware that they have been skinned, stuffed and mounted?

What about their lives? did they go to school? strive for education, aspire to new heights, dream of experience, share the love of another, simply to be turned into something without name? Something to be gawped at, bathed in anomicity their former lives and dreams ultimately turned into a rather tasteless bit of furniture?

I don't know why, but this strikes me as sick. I have little understanding in why people would like to wrap themselves in dead animals, let alone stare at dead people.

I suppose I'm wrong, but I am begining to think of "art" as something made solely to extend the boundries of tastelessness.

as the man said, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I hate"

Datalas.

--

I'm going to go for a bit of a lie down....

Is it art? I say yes, regardless of the fact that I don't care for it.

Remember the elephant crap picture of the Virgin Mary in NYC? Now THAT was cool.

I have visited it in Austria
 

Yes, yes and yes. Those people had explicitly donnated their body to become part of the exhibition.

The teaching power of those models is increadible. All the important little details are preserved. For once I could see from my own eyes, just how those human anatomy panes we all learned from realy are precise. In short : we aren't pastel-colored inside. And those nerves really are there, so you better be careful next time you decide to hurt yourself.

The exposition was about learning anatomy the way only med students used to be allowed to. It was also about our attitude towards the human body. Also part of the exhibition was the expression on people's faces. Grave, moved and thoughfull was the base line, though their scientific curiosity was omnipresent, for it had drew them to the exhibit in the first place. Finaly, a deep respect for our physicality and mortality filled the place. It simply was impossible to be unaffected.

It is unfortunate it is here being presented as an art show. It wasn't. This was the work of a skillfull surgeon and a teacher. One or two pieces were made with artfull intent, such as the chess master pictured today. I aswell found those out of place and unnecessary.

The are more picture and the Dr. Von Hagens' vision statament at
http://www.koerperwelten.com/index_en.htm

As contoversial as this exhibit is, it pales in comparison to the appalling true story recounted in Give Me My Father's Body.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York City first displayed live humans in 1897, and continued to display their bones after death, eventually returning the remains to the Eskimo clan in 1993.

It also bring to mind Egyptian mummies.
 

While most of Egypt's royal mummies now lie on display in the Egyptian Museum, Tutankhamen's body remains where Carter found it -- safe in the sarcophagus in the tomb where Tut was buried 3,300 years ago. If you're interested in the story.

As a medical, or scientific experiment in order to allow people with a presumably invaluable insight into the working of the human anatomy I can almost see a reason for it,

although as your (gmarceau) post indicated that they were very similar to a model ("just how those human anatomy panes we all learned from realy are precise") and I begin to question the need to do it again (if at all)

It does however answer the other question. "Is it art?", well no, from what you said it was a teaching aid. Although I dread to think how my parents would react to my body being used in a similar way.

I also questio whether the desire was to produce something usefull or Art, the medical aspect would tend to indicate the former, where as the positioning of the bodies would indicate otherwise....

Datalas.

ps: as always the only guarantee I can make about my spelling is that it will be wrong, I blame my skoolink :)

--

Anyhow, time to do something a little more pleasent (to my mind)

Yes. The way I understand it, Dr. von Hagens is an artist at heart, turned surgeon, who saw in this his last chance of doing something artsy - but shouldn't have.

Still, most of the bodies are simply in natural poses. This is how the exhibit can reach at you philosophicaly - you get to reconize yourself in the bodies.

The thing people don't understand is the art is in the idea, not in the artwork. Doesn't mean there isn't a pile of shit out there, like that bloody empty room.

Personally i don't find anythign 'sick' about it, its facinating.

The church still seems to think they have a monopoly on death, fuck em, its good stuff, and definately of educational and artisic value.

A photojournalist mag i sometiems buy called colours last issue was on volenteers, for the international year of the volenteer (UN). One of them was this guy, facinating read.

YES ! Someone who agrees with me at long last :-) I have always said that art is whatever the artist feels is art - art is in the eye of the artist if you like. I think some of my code (software) is perfectly artistic - someone else thinks it's a pile of gobbeldegook (very technical word that), but it's still art because I say it's art.

I agree, what is under our skin is something that not many people get to see, why shouldn't we have a look.

Here in New Zealand, our "national museum" - Te Papa (Maori for "Our Place") once exhibited an artistic work of a statue of the "Virgin Mary" inside of a condom http://www.google.com/search?q=virgi...nside+a+condom gives some articles (highlighting sections of the church (catholics ??) stance on contraception, abortion, that kind of tihng) - you should have seen the church react ! I like your sentiment - fuck em, it's an artistic work it has a right to be there.

Well, you don't have a word if everybody makes up their own definition of it. Words assumes a certain common experience which is called in the discussion when somebody uses one of them.

Not to stay at rest, I'll offert a substitute : art is planes of communication intermingled with beauty and/or craftiness. The typical artful experience is : I'll stay longer since it's pretty, meanwhile the artist is happy I get I better chance at thinking over its meaning.

Mmmm, theoretically I guess that's right, a word implies a common meaning between the parties. Realistically that doesn't always work, especially with subjective words like "art", everybody has a slightly different definition of the word.

Ok, but you have used more of those subjective words to define a subjective word so we are not much better off. What is "beauty" or "craftiness" or "pretty".

I feel I am crafty writing a piece of code, if you are a more experienced programmer than I then you might see the code as obvious and not crafty at all. Therefore, am I being crafty because I think I am being crafty, or am I not being crafty because you see my code as obvious ?

What is "exploit"?