My family has been having a debate about politics and sometimes people post random things in the conversation. I feel it's to divert the conversation from the topics that should be spoken about. But I end up feeling the need to rebut those points of conversation, because I see them as absurd. One thing that was posted was about how there should be guilt about this:
http://cndls.georgetown.edu/applications/postertool/index.cfm?fuseaction=poster.display&posterID=1976 , this was my reply:
As for the exhibit, those people donated their bodies to science or however they deemed fit, just like hundreds of others. It's no different than Michael Jackson owning the "Elephant Man" bones, or a medical class having a skeleton in the class room. What about Egyptian mummies? We desecrated hallowed ground and put the dead on display in museums too.
Do you look upon them with the same eye of guilt knowing that their body was never meant to be seen that way? Or that according to their beliefs the soul will be forever in a state of unrest unable to return home?
This guy isn't digging up graves in the middle of the night. You can think it's morally wrong for him to make these figures from human remains; that's fine. But you can't deny that having molds and preserved organs and bodies doesn't help science to create medicine and teach doctors. There are fetuses and brains as well as other organs in formaldehyde in natural history museums to show the natural progression of development. It may not be pleasant, but it is important to be able to see these kinds of things up close.
So why should we look at those pieces with any more guilt than we do for medicines and cosmetics that are developed on animals or even people? At least the people who were used to make those figures gave their dead bodies to make them. We're not talking about people being murdered to make these things. How can this be worse than killing an animal and stuffing it and putting it on display? They're both dead. They no longer have souls if such things exist. Aren't they just meat at that point? If there is a difference it is purely an emotional one; much like Americans are disgusted by the idea of eating some animals like cats and dogs, but have no problem eating a chicken or cow.
Art IS supposed to challenge you, and your beliefs. If art isn't doing that it is failing. Yes, some art is about pretty girls or a bowl of fruit but what conversation is the artist trying to have with the viewer? Eat more fruit? That nude women are attractive? And beyond that, even the creator of the exhibit said it was more about science than art; a study in the human form for people to see the elegance in its design with their own eyes is more important than an anatomical drawing of a cadaver.
There is one last thing I have to say about the human body. If the aversion for this art stems from profiting from the death of another human being then we should all take a look at the medical industry. I am sure we've all heard that the human body is composed of something like $1.00's worth of materials, but what you don't hear is that that same body is sold (in chunks) to people in the medical industry totaling roughly half a million dollars depending on the condition of the corpse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/national/12BODI.html?ex=1394427600&en=00ddf6a8cb256456&ei=5007&partner=USERLANDI don't feel guilty for looking at that display anymore than I do for looking at the stuffed animals at the Field Museum. I am sorry that they are dead, but they are dead and won't be coming back. But I feel sadder for the animals. They didn't have a choice in how their remains were treated.
Bayer aspirin was developed by Nazis in concentration camps. Now that is something to be outraged by and feel guilty about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Nazi_chairman_and_aspirin_discoverer-Tegan
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nagoyodin's journal
artistic