As many of you may be aware, the Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science is presently hosting the exhibit "Our Body: The Universe Within." http://www.ourbodytheuniversewithin.com/Here is a link to a video on the Mary Brogan website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPVqM5MRaCo
Now, here are two more clips showing the exhibit:
This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune: "Famous forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht narrates a tour of the amazing "Bodies" exhibit at the Carnegie Science Center Sportsworks in Pittsburgh." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kJmypE1DGQ&NR=1
Here is a news blip from Orlando: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUpjePNV6U
Let's have a conversation about this explicit and often hotly contested exhibit.
While we talk about this I would like to ask is this art? what is art? is this science? can art and science join? Think about our discussions of genre in class. What are our expectations if we label this exhibit art? if we label it science? are there other issues that come up?
Also, as we discuss take a look at this artist's presentation of the dead body: http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/joel_peter_witkin_01.html
I have actually visited this exhibit this past year. I don't have anything negative to say about it at all. All of the displays are fascinating and it is very informative. It opens your eyes to all the little details that go into making a body able to function. I can understand why some people would have a problem with this exhibit, considering the exhibit where they have the development of the fetus. However, this body exhibit is not a disrespect towards the sanctity of the human body at all but rather emphasizing the complexity and wonders of how it all comes together, working as one.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is possible to incorporate both science and art into one single piece of creation although I wouldn't necessarily say this exhibit is art other than God's art, his creation in full view. The body exhibit is obviously a very scientific display especially since they have posted facts about the human body all over the exhibit.
Art is defined differently by different people and the body exhibit in my opinion is not a valid display of art. Art has creativity, passion, originality behind it and these are things I don't think the body exhibit offers. On a general consensus though labeling this exhibit art, science or both is a complete matter of opinion so there is no technical right or wrong answer.
I have also been able to attend an exhibit similar to this one called "The Bodies Exhibit." I was amazed and so curious as to how they were able to do these kinds of things. For example, the scientists were able to show every inch of the body and not just through a plastic figure but through an actual human body cut into all different sections of the body. The most amazing exhibit was pathways to which the blood traveled through. I do believe this is a form of art. It takes carefully thought out planning and patiences. Many people do tend to disagree with this idea, but remember art can be in any form and not everyone agrees with someone elses idea of art.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that this type of art is also a science. You have to know where things are within the body and know how to get rid of the parts without harming what you want or need. This takes a long time to study and find the best way to reach the goal. So with this idea, I do believe that science and art can be joined together because the human body is art and science all wrapped in one.
As I have mentioned, art is seen differently from one person to the next. By putting an exact label on this form of art wouldn't be correct because people's views would constantly contradict the theory over and over again.
I always enjoy learning about science related subjects, such as the body, and this exhibit is probably the most interesting one I have ever seen or heard of. Bob Marley said that "a man is a universe within himself." That clearly illustrates the complexity of the human body and all its workings. I feel like we don't appreciate the elaborate make up of our own being. Developing such a wonderful innovation that allowed scientists to preserve the bodies in that amazing way is just another reason why science is so great. Whether or not this is art is a difficult question. Personally, I believe art can be anything that represents some feeling, action, or object in a creative manner. To me this exhibit is certainly art and although it may not be in the same category as a Van Gogh painting, I think others could agree. This exhibit alone proves art and science can combine. Even if one wanted art with no science contained in it, that would be impossible, for the laws that govern our universe are active in any artistic process. The way in which the bodies are preserved is comparable to the way in which a painting is preserved in an art gallery. I don't know if anyone else would agree, but that is how i see it. Science is all around us, and depending on who you are, art can be too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Ashley, that you can't put a a label on art because everyone is different and has unique perspectives on things. It's difficult and basically impossible.
ReplyDeleteHmm... you are raising some really interesting points. What do you think, then, of Joel Peter-Witkin's work?
ReplyDeleteI have actually been to The Bodies Exhibit twice, once in Orlando during my sophomore year in high school with a friend's family and then again last year during my senior year of high school in Fort Lauderdale. The one in Orlando was fairly larger. At first I will admit I was scared and nervous to see what these bodies were going to look like. I kept picturing corpses all over the place. But as I entered the exhibit, I thought the bodies were fake at first. I continued through the exhibit and was fascinated by it. For me, in a way, it expressed life through death especially for the fetus and baby part. It showed how life begins and how it can end. It was set up so nicely to where it was not creepy at all. It was extremely informative and interesting. It had a scientific feel to it where it wasn't weird to me at least. I learned a lot from this exhibit. I can understand how people would be aganist especially when it comes to how these bodies were obtained. I actually asked one of the people and they told me that the bodies were donated, died of natural causes and I believe from China. I really enjoyed this exhibit. I personally would not consider it art though. As for the picture below, I don't like it at all. It is really creepy and the way the body is cut up and displayed that way makes it very gruesome. I think how people consider something art is about how they perceive things and how their mind processes the images.
ReplyDeleteI have also been able to witness the bodies exhibit in fort lauderdale with my Anatomy and Physiology class in high school. This exhibit was by far the most interesting view of the human body I have ever seen. It was absolutly unbelievable. The bodies, all cut up do display its different parts, were layed out according to their function/system. While I do believe that art is really justified by the person viewing it, I personally see this more as an educating experience than as an art exhibit. While i do admit the quality and effort put forth by the creators of this masterpiece was substantial, I believe the purpose of the exhibit was to inform and amaze, not to entertain. The fetus section was absolutly mind blowing and almost sad in a way. But it was just as much beautiful as it was sad. The human body is an intricate working of systems so complex that it seems that if any person tried to recreate it they would not even come close, no matter how advanced technology may be. As for the artist joel peter witki's display, I find it an appalling way to show the human body. Art in this abstract form is over the top. While I agree that everyone has a right to their personal imagination,that imagination is to strung out and weird for me.
ReplyDeleteI think Joel Peter-Witkin's work is appalling. I believe that it is art, but it is way to abstract for me to have any appreciation for. Its very graphic and not my type of art AT ALL.
ReplyDeleteJoel-Peter Witkin has serious mental problems. I think his "work" is anything but art, possibly a form of murder. It's absolutely disgusting, and probably the most disturbing stuff I've ever seen. ew.
ReplyDeleteNo offense Caitlin, but you just contradicted yourself. In your original post, you said you "don't have anything negative to say about it at all". Then continued to explain that "this body exhibit is not a disrespect towards the sanctity of the human body at all but rather emphasizing the complexity and wonders of how it all comes together, working as one". I understand if you changed your mind, I just thought it was funny when I read your two posts...
ReplyDeleteI just realized you were talking about two different exhibits... I'm sorry Caitlin for the above comment :)
ReplyDeleteI am going to start by saying it has taken me four days to return back to this website after seeing the prompt Monday. As soon as the page loaded, I closed it with just enough time to have these images burned into my mind. Personally, I am nauseated and completely disturbed by these exhibits.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not a fan of “The Bodies” exhibit, I believe it does serve more of a scientific and educational purpose than Joel-Peter Witkin’s displays. “The Bodies” exhibit aims to inform anyone willing to learn of the stages of life and the makeup of the body. I can appreciate this effort, however, the idea of going to see this exhibit in person is not something that is on my “to do” list. After asking Sarah, a friend who has visited this exhibit, she explained that she saw skin hanging like clothes on a hanger, a fetus in a glass case, and amputated body parts exposing muscles and bones. I cringed at the mental images. No thank you.
Examining Joel-Peter Witkin’s art and looking through his portfolio online, I have come to the decision his presentations are a form of art, however, I strongly believe his art is unethical and extremely disturbing. In fact, I do not have the words to explain quite how I feel but here are a few: sickening, nauseating, perverted, unnecessary. The amputated body parts within his artwork look like they are not properly cared for unlike those presented in “The Bodies” exhibit. Although this may be “fascinating” and a form of art and expression, I am horrified that his work is popular and even exists, for that matter.
Morgan,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about how science has developed over time allowing us to "preserve the bodies in that amazing way"
I like how passionate you sound in your response :)
Although I feel that Joel Peter-Witkin's work is grotesque, I still do believe it's art. As I mentioned in my first post you can't put a label on art because everyone has a different perspective on what is considered art. So in my opinion, I still do believe that Joel Peter-Witkin's work is still considered art even though I don't take a liking to it.
ReplyDeleteIn preparing to write this blog I have struggled back and forth with myself to come up with an explanation that suitably defines what constitutes an art and what constitutes a science. After much internal struggle I have come up with the conclusion that art and science are inextricably linked to one another and yet altogether different as well. In my opinion, to consider something a piece of art, it must be a creation that is original and not easily duplicated, or produced with skill. A science on the other hand is more of a journey to intentionally find truths or knowledge. However, science and art are also somewhat the same. For example: a discovery so profound or beautiful can and should be considered an art because the idea was produced through a process of creation and thought just as a piece of art would be. The IDEA of science is an art.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I think the body exhibit is one of those odd cases, a situation where art and science are one and the same. The bodies are displayed just as a statue in Greek or Roman times would have been, as a wonder, and a piece of art. Yet unlike the statues of Greek and Roman times these are not technically created by men. These are natural objects and they serve a dual purpose: to educate and astound. There is nothing at all crude or hideous about this exhibit.
Witikins work however is hideous. I think it is a perversion of nature and the sanctity of life, produced only to invoke a response from his audience which is one of the traits or themes of surrealism which is said to be one of his biggest influences. This is in contrast with the Body Exhibit which is an informative and respectful exhibit. In my opinion there is nothing artistic or scientific about his photographs at all.
Ashley, I agree with you when you say you cannot put a label on art and I also agree with you that everyone perceives art differently. I understand where you are coming from but I have a hard time classifying Witkins work as art. Technically there is nothing in his work that someone could not produce just as easily. Just as in DADA where people like Marcell Duchamp created "art" or "anti-art" out of every day, mundane items such as urinals purely to evoke a response, however there was nothing particularly profound about it. I think if anyone can create it then it takes the title of an art away and makes it "schlock and kitsch". What is even worse is that Witkin doesn't use mundane items, he seems to exploit abnormalities for his own benifit.
ReplyDeleteSO, here is another perspective on Joel Peter-Witkin's work. One reading of these this type of still life is that he is critiquing a European painting genre that originates as early as ancient times. This genre, however, really came into its own during the 17the century in the Netherlands. These paintings often employed various iconographic tropes and religious references. Many artists used this genre to explore the impermanence of life. For example, a luscious red apple would be positioned next to a wilting flower. Thus, these paintings would have symbolic reminders of life’s impermanence – hourglasses, skulls, etc. One particular type of still life, “breakfast paintings,” would present images of sumptuous feasts enjoyed by the upper class. The meaning behind these images would be warnings to avoid gluttony.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at Banquet Still Life from the 17th century at this link: http://www.theartwolf.com/articles/images/van-beyeren-still-life-banquet.jpg
Compare this painting to Feast of Fools.
Do you think that Peter-Witkin is in dialogue with this genre and its generic conventions?
What might Joel Peter-Witkin be critiquing? What is he saying in the image posted at the beginning of our conversation? Think about this critically. Sure, it's fine to think that his images are grotesque and immoral. But, I am challenging you to look beyond the surface. Look beyond your biases.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Peter-Witkin is "in dialogue" with this type of genre. Banquet Still Life I can understand what it is trying to represent, warning of gluttony. But I still don't find a comparison or hidden message behind the work of Peter-Witkin.
ReplyDeleteJoel Peter-Witkin might be critiquing the fact that people can be very uneasy with the human body. He often uses people with deformities in his pieces, conveying that he is celebrating the uniqueness of their stature rather than shaming them like the public tends to do.
ReplyDeleteThough i was not fortunate enough to visit the body exhibit, i can say that from what i have seen and heard that it is very interesting and informative. This exhibit enables the human eye to see how the human body works and how everything comes together to form such a complex being. Due to the very real nature of this exhibit i understand why some people may have difficulties in accepting it.
ReplyDeleteIt is very clear that both science and art can both be incorporated within one another. This entire exhibit is proof enough in itself. The way in which each display is set up, organized and portrayed to the public is art. However the sheer functions that each body display is describing and showing is the scientific aspect of it. in my opinion, i find the human body in itself to be the greatest form of art known to man. The human body is complex, unique, and beautiful.
Art in itself is interpreted differently from every individual. What i would classify as art someone else may not. From my point of view however, this entire exhibit encompasses both art and science wrapped up into one. That is why i find this exhibit to be unbelievably fascinating.
While we talk about this I would like to ask is this art? what is art? is this science? can art and science join? Think about our discussions of genre in class. What are our expectations if we label this exhibit art? if we label it science? are there other issues that come up?
i agree with ashley when she says you cant really put a label on what is art. What is considered to be art is perceived differently depending upon the individual. In regards to this exhibit there really is no way to say if it is just science or if it is just art or if it is both. Each individual has to determine that for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Bodies Exhibit is an interesting one to say the least. Personally, I don't really see where this "controversy" is stemming from. I am sure there a lot of people who aren't interested in this because it might be a little disturbing, but i've never really thought of it as wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this exhibit is Art. Art is a such a broad topic and this definitely falls into it. This exhibit tastefully displays the human body scientifically but shows it as art. If we were to label this exhibit as science less people would be inclined to go this exhibit. Also, if it was a Art exhibit then the people who are interested in the science would be turned away from it. This exhibit is a delicate balance of Art and Science which makes it so interesting such a popular attraction
Caitlin I agree with you completely this exhibit is an interesting one and I really don't see any negative things coming from it
ReplyDeleteI share Caitlen's view on Joel Peter-Witkin may be critiqueing our uneasiness with the human body. But i also think that he may be attempting to critique the way of life and the hidden imperfections in every human being. Someone may be perfect on the outside, but underneath is where the truth lies.
ReplyDeleteArt and science as words I think can be stretched to cover several ideas or concrete things. I do believe that art and science intertwine. There is a sense of practice, precision and the ultimate creation or even understanding of beauty that follows their studies. The study of the human body as the exhibit shows is something beautiful. The human body is a beautiful thing and different perceptions of what it looks like isn't necessarily a harmful thing. If all people looked at something with a single viewpoint or wasn't radical and didn't show new ideas and controversy, then we would still be colonies under British rule. It's not like these forms of art and sciences are hurting anyone and coming from a family that supports the arts and sciences (my Dad is a science teacher and my mom is highly creative)then I'd have to also support their growth and development.
ReplyDeleteI understand that out of relating the body to science causes conflict with religious views and the whole issue of the Bible or Torah or most religious denominations with the ideology of evolution.
I think essentially the Body exhibit is art with scientific support or maybe the other way around. That I'm not sure of. I do think it's important to look at things for not as obviously as they appear.
-Ashley
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you saying that there really can't be a clear definition of art because essentially, I think art is about interpretation of both reality and the perception of reality. So basically i guess it's everything and anything anybody can think of. A book can be art. Words arranged in any order can be art. What I'm writing can be art. Then even body movements like dancing, that's also art. It's wild to think that so many different things can have a common source.
I definitely agree with the proposal that Witkins "Feast of Fools" is probably a satirical representation of other portraits and a warning against gluttony but seeing as how this portrait was created in 1990 (according to the slideshow) I think that Witkins audience is well aware of the gluttonous habits of 17th century monarchs, thus this photograph seems unnecessary and grotesque. I would even go as far as to concede that this may be art, even though I find it horrid. I am never one to stick stubbornly to my views when someone has honestly made me think otherwise, so therefore I do admit and agree that this could be considered a form of art.
ReplyDeleteI understand that many of the pictures may or may not have hidden messages but that still does not excuse the vulgarity of his work. I always say, as do many, "to each his own", so I cannot say that his work is wrong but I can certainly say that I am strongly opposed to it. With freedom of expression/speech comes responsibility. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Obviously, if someone doesn't want to look they don't have to so you can't say that he is forcing his works/views/opinions on anyone.
While attempting to research the topic I found very little substantial references, and I couldn't really find an unbiased authoritative source. Obviously Wikipedia has a page on him and while a hate to say "Wikipedia said" they propose that some of his works had to be created in Mexico in order to get around U.S. laws. Again, I am not proposing this as fact and I couldn't find anything else to substantiate this but it does plant a seed of doubt. Trying to look at Witkins work with an unbiased mind is difficult because I have trouble viewing it for any long period of time and other than the “Feast of Fools” I have trouble finding other examples of symbolism. Many artists throughout time have created beautiful and profound satirical masterpieces but can Witkin be considered among them? In attempting to create satire has Witkin sunk below the lowest depths of the very topics that he is making a statement against?
I think the question of rather this is art is a good one, because I believe this is art. Art is something that is indefinable because it's so many things to so many different people. It's hard to label something that's not art versus something that is because it's about someone personal relationship with their craft, something they have worked on maybe for years. It could also be seen as some type of self expression for the artist. If art was one thing, who would decide the citeria for what art is. This art exhibit is a prime example of this. Personally I also believe this is science because it present scienctific information about the human body and other things. I think when we label this as just art or just science our expectations limits us to see the entire creative picture of a certain piece. This exhibit is one of those pieces that could fall under both.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with ashley about not being able to label different ideas. It seems that everyone here share very similar ideas about art being so many different things which I think is a great thing.
ReplyDeleteI would say that it is art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Anything and everything can be and is classified as art. If someone threw an apple against a wall and took a picture of it, at least one person would take something away from it or make it personal to them. And thus it is art. I think that the body is a beautiful thing and now that the general public is able to look at it up close we can get a better understanding of how it works and what our habits do to our bodies, like the picture of the black lung. Or we can understand better what happens in a stroke. It is obviously science because that is the very thing that science deals with. Scientists are constantly trying to figure out how the body works and what different parts do and we have yet to learn everything, I mean we still dont even know what the appendix is for. They are able to work together because both fields are so broad in their workings. I think that it definantly fits the description of science better than it does with art only because this is the first thing that comes to mind when we think of science. Whereas when we think of art we think of paintings of scenery or alive people like the mona lisa. The fact that art is so broadly interpreted makes it less definable which is why we might get different impressions from each.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Peter-Witkin is "in dialogue" with this type of genre.
ReplyDeleteJoel Peter-Witkin might be critiquing the fact that people may be uneasy with the human body and the idea of death. Witkin's subjects seem to be deformed and treated poorly. Although this may be a form of art and expression, I still, however, do not believe it is ethical.
David
ReplyDeleteI like how you defined science and the characteristics that are involved in it, but i disagree with your opinion on art. You said that art has to be original and skillful and yet there are many famous artists who are very famous solely because they are good at duplicating existing paintings. And what about those paintings that are made just by someone throwing paint randomely against a canvas. People pay a lot of money for those because they find something beautiful in them and they think that it is art.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteI agree with your viewpoint on art being in the eye of the beholder and I can also see the bodies exhibit being more of a science tool than an art gallery. You also said that the purpose of the exhibit was to inform and amaze not entertain but i think it is doing just that, entertaining people's imaginations.
I am very fond of this exhibit. I believe it motivates people to want to choose a career in health care. It shows people how their choices now affect their future health. I believe that this is art. This exhibit show the marvelous structure of the human body. For thousand of years artist have painted pictures of the human body. Some examples would be a naked woman or sculptures of Greek gods. Science and art can join. In this case the art is the sculptures and being able to appreciate the human form and clearly the science is the great detail in describing how the human body functions.
ReplyDeleteI Felt that Joel Peter Witkin's pictures were quite disturbing. Despite the grotesque images it is art. This is not art that is pleasurable to the eye. I see it as having an inner meaning. Showing some evils of the world. An example would be: The woman once a bird. This piece shows a womans stomach sucked in by a corset. These corsets are sometimes used today called training corsets. These are extremely unhealthy for people. It sucks in the organs and rib cage done to try and improve the outer outer beauty. Appearance is portrayed as having extreme importance in this picture despite the health issues being caused. I also notice that some of his art work may portray the world evolving. In one of the photos two males were kissing. Showing the acceptance of gays and lesbians in society today.
Derek,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that anything can be considered as art. Everyone has a different opinion. What one person might think is beautiful another may believe it is ugly or disturbing.
Looks like a lot of people have been to one of the "art" expos and so have I. I agree for the most with the majority of people so far in saying that I do believe that science and art can mix as it is shown here. It can mix to be very interesting to look at as well as educational. As for the fruits mixed with the dead chopped up bloody body parts I'll agree and say that that is considered art; not my favorite but it's creative. For the most part I think we all have a decent understand of what art is. Art could be anything. Art in my opinion is anything that isn't written that conveys meaning, possibly meanings.
ReplyDeleteTo the science question. Is this science? Just based on the extreme detail of the skeleton's bones and muscle how could this not be science. I would only make the suggestion I would be more interested in seeing more action postures with pairs of skeletons. Like in sports and fighting and dancing and whatever else.
I agree derek, anything can be art. If someone threw an apple on a canvas and it stuck someone def can take meaning away thus becoming art. Not the best of art, but still art nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteMorgan
ReplyDeletevery niice refrence to bob marley in calling a man is a universe within himself. alot can be learned form the human body and this expo helps.
i personally have not seen the exibit in orlando, but have heard many different stories from my friends that have gone and checked it out. They wouldn't stop talking about how real the exibits were and how grotesque and interesting they looked. I think that this in its own way is a form of art, anything can be classified as art i think. I think that science and art can indeed go hand in hand. I think that by combining the too it makes the art look even crazier which is evident by this exibit.
ReplyDeleteDavid, i liked how you characterized what science was and how it can be related to science, but like Derek said not all art has to be original. you can take something that is old and make it into something new and it can be considered art.
ReplyDeletei agree with breionna when she said, "in my opinion, i find the human body in itself to be the greatest form of art known to man. The human body is complex, unique, and beautiful." as for the second part of the post, i think that Wikins work is in the same dialogue as the second picture posted its just his view on it. they have the same idea generally, the whole banquet idea wikins just using something else as "food". he probably has a reason behind why he used it and would back up his reasoning with that. but you might find this interesting, im a huge csi fan and this past season an episode i just watched is right along the lines of that painting. its called art imitates life i think. its pretty disturbing but i found it kind of interesting. i dont want to go into too much detail but i thought it was worth viewing and mentioning.
ReplyDelete