BODIES

Early next month, the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh will open it's Atalanta-based exhibit "BODIES...The Exhibition" which will run until May of '08. The exhibit takes unclaimed human bodies, (which clearly creates part of the controversy surrounding the exhibit) and preserves them using a technique called polymer preservation. The bodies, removed of their skin, are posed in many positions, like riding a bike, or playing soccer. It also will highlight body parts and organs which were disease ridden, such as a smoker's lung with cancer next to a healthy one, and will show the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles on the body. I am reminded of the first time I bought a pack of cigarettes in South America and saw next to the health warning a black lung extracted from a cancer victim, with the warning "Will Cause Lung Cancer". The sight of this, by the way, didn't even make the locals flinch.

When I first heard of this exhibit several years ago, my reaction was like most people, grossed out but sickly fascinated. A sort of med school study meets Hannibal Lecter. According to an article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, some of the first bodies have already arrived to the city for a preview event, and are greeted with concerns and complaints by some Pittsburgh residents. I can somewhat understand people's contempt for the showcase. It's morbid, mildly disgusting, and for anyone with a fear of dead bodies (like myself) a tad frightening. Concerns about this exhibition include the way the bodies were obtained. According to an article at nationalgeographic.com, unclaimed and unidentified bodies are made available for medical research. In this article, Roy Glover, professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a spokesperson for the exhibit, says that the main goal for this exhibit is public education. In my opinion, this exhibit should be seen as just that, a hugely educational experience and should also be appreciated for it's cutting edge and "in your face" look at disease and unhealthy living. However, opponents of the exhibit, such as Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania states that "...there is a fine line between education and exploitation..." the article goes on to say.

On a related note, I always get a little annoyed when people complain about controversial museum displays and especially art exhibits. Isn't that the objective of any good artist to provoke ideas and controversy? Shouldn't people go into these displays with that mindset? Furthermore, if you REALLY feel you will be offended by the art, why waste your time and go? You obviously have a hard time appreciating art anyway.

In the same Post-Gazette article mentioned earlier, David Hillenbrand, president and CEO of the Carnegie Museums, mentions the complaints people had made about a piece in the Art Museum's current exhibit "Viva Vetro! Glass Alive!" called "Freedom of Speech Cup". This three-inch high red, white and blue cup with the word FUCK printed on it caused quite a stir from some spectators, something I vaguely remember reading about this summer, but dismissed it as annoying. I suppose that is the exact reaction the artist was looking for when it was created, however, don't the complainants see the irony in their outrage? I would imagine, these are the same people who order (and I shudder as I type) freedom fries with their tuna salad hoagie.

Art is meant to be controversial, create controversy and be thought provoking. One artist that comes to mind, and is one of my personal favorites the Dadaist Marcel Duchamp who's 1917 piece "Fountain" (which I had the chance to see last summer in Philadelphia) raised more than a few eyebrows.

This also parallels complaints by right-wing creationists about dinosaur fossil exhibits at museums, because obviously they didn't exist. Something Hillenbrand also mentions in his article. Which reminds me of a museum I have to see to believe. The Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY which brings "the Bible to life". A complete museum proving the fact that one God created everything and evolution is a sham. I don't have a lot to say on this matter that hasn't already been brought up and beat to death, but I just find it staggering that an entire museum can be opened trying to, once and for all, scientifically prove that there is a god. Disproving evolution is quite a feat, in my opinion, and even if there was a god, couldn't he or she have set the wheels of evolution into motion?