Nazism and the Warhol of cadaver art
There's quite a tumult in Poland these days. I should say: there's quite a tumult about Poland, and what might be built there, and by whom, and for what dastardly, bone-chilling reasons.

You've probably heard of this man, Gunther von Hagens. He's an anatomist and pathologist, formerly of Heidelberg University, who now makes his living freaking the hell out of people with his [patented] plasticized cadavers, former humans infused with various polymers, then carved up in interesting and artsy ways.
Once a mild-mannered research scientist with no artistic pretensions, He displayed his work at a University open house in the late 70's and has been doing cadaver art ever since. While he says he originally felt uneasy that his work was being considered art, that is, it was resonating emotionally with people, he gradually came to understand it.
plastination opens the hearts of the people to themselves. They recognize themselves, get a new kind of body pride.

The current controversy: he wants to build a factory in Western Poland to churn these suckers out. The facility would employ up to 300 people and would be located in the small town of Sieniawa Zarska, very close to both Prague and Berlin.
This seems to worry people. Certainly the commercialization of death is nothing new, but for some [the devout] it remains a sticky subject. So let's enumerate the concerns:
- Artistic Medium is dead folks
- Factory will mass-produce dead folk art
- Western religions tend to sanctify the dead and their bodies
- Factory will be in Poland, which is virtually 100% Catholic, 60% of whom consider themselves deeply religious
- Poland is scene of another kind of industrial event involving human bodies, the Holocaust.
“How can a German come up with the idea of processing dead bodies for commercial use on Polish soil 60 years after the liberation of Auschwitz?” one Polish daily asked.Firstly, All Germans were not Nazis, and von Hagens is not a grave-robber, each cadaver he uses has consented while still alive. It's more of an ethical quandary for the person being plasticized than for von Hagens, because they are the ones obligated to address the feelings and fears of their loved ones, some of whom are probably religious. He's got factories doing this stuff, that makes him prodigious, not a monster.
Frankly, the biggest problem I have with von Hagens is that he's a bad artist. His compositions are trite and perfunctory. A man playing chess with his brain exposed. A body playing basketball. One hanging its skin on a coat rack. He's terrible, but there's nothing evil about his incompetence. He's certainly not Dr. Mengele. Where that doctor made infamous lampshades of human skin, von Hagens offers handy backpacks of, presumably, nylon. Again, tacky merchandising makes him a capitalist, not a monster.
I'm annoyed at the way the media--especially the American media--has tried to paint him as some kind of mad scientist, playing on people's fear of death and the cultural aversion to playing with remains without explaining his motives. Motives? He's just craaaaazy. Two years ago the BBC ran an article after von Hagens conducted the UK's first public autopsy in 170+ years. Then, they called him "a professor of anatomy" and went on to explain that his fascination with the human body comes from childhood: "it was seeing his first autopsy when he was 17, which he says absolutely fascinated him, that encouraged him to take up medicine."
Then yesterday, ABC, using a Reuters feed, ran this article, calling him a "Controversial German artist . . . known for his displays of preserved human corpses stripped of skin." The report then noted his desire to, "build a factory in Poland to mass-produce his art." A similar story run yesterday in the Telegraph is more measured and, well, journalistic, calling him an "anatomist". It then allows von Hagens to explain what the press chooses to call a factory is intended to be a "cathedral of science". Still weird--maybe more so--but that destroys the implicit argument that this shop and warehouse are simply for the wholesale distribution of desecrated remains to the consumer market.
The biggest part of the tumult, though, involves that 5th point up there. Turns out von Hagens' dad--who handled von Hagens' business affairs in Poland--was a stormtrooper.
Already suspect, von Hagens is now portrayed as a Nazi by association. Von Hagens denies it of course, saying he didn't know about his father's past, but we know the truth. He's gone so far as to fire the father, but that's smoke and mirrors. He's also going to replace him with a native Pole, whom we'll all decry as an Uncle Tom. The subtext of these articles is startling that way.
My friend [L] has an interesting story about her time in Germany. She was befriended by a couple Austrian students in a cafe and eventually [she says inevitably] the talk turned to the holocaust and how the German people try to hide or deny personal, familial involvement, since they can't escape the legacy as a nation. The girl [adjusted to represent L's bad Austrian caricature] said something like:
Eferyvon in Germany says zey housed a family of Jews. Eferyvon ver hiding little Anne Franks in zeyr Attik. Zis is just not pohssible. It is impohssible, no vahn vould have died if all der Germans had Jews in zeyr attiks.Point being: There were very few innocents in Germany, and you can't throw a rock, be it Baden-Baden or Dresden, without hitting the descendent of a Nazi, them's the facts. There must come a time when we stop looking sidelong at people, condemning them for the sins of their forbears.
We can, however, condemn von Hagens for making crappy art, then shamelessly merchandising it. And condemn the world for buying it and making him rich. And then him again for wearing that fedora like the Indiana Jones of embalming.
8 Comments:
Gunther von Hagens should at least be commended for further taking humans further from death mysticism. The religious ideas that occult what life, and ultimately what death, actually is have befuddled not just our understanding but our actual ethical appreciation of life.
Seeing ourselves as amazing structures of evolution who, without life, are merely incredibly complex forms is a good thing.
On that count, though, I'd say this:
1) Gunther has terrible taste in clothes
2) His art isn't that interesting, but his science might be
3) I'm interested to see where this takes Western culture in terms of how we view our position in the animal kingdom... probably not far
Some of Van Hagens' creations were shown in a Discover article about him a year ago
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-04/features/gross-anatomy/
and I found them fascinating; the ones that were shown in the article were NOT the joke-y ones you saw, they were "purer" examples of what one could see and learn from looking inside a human body... but ANY of his pieces are still marvels of science with the capacity to teach us something.
Interesting quotes from the article:
"A resident of totalitarian East Germany for 25 years, von Hagens spent two years in jail for attempting to defect."
"Von Hagens emphasizes that the bodies and body parts that appear in Body Worlds are provided entirely by unpaid volunteers, everyday folks who donate their remains to him specifically for this purpose. One exhibit in the show is devoted expressly to explaining the donation process and even permits new donors to sign up—which they do, in droves. Hundreds of donors commit their postmortem parts to von Hagens every year, some out of pure educational altruism, others to give their lives lasting meaning, still others to secure their 15 minutes of fame, if only for their disembodied liver. "
"To ease the viewer’s uneasiness, von Hagens has assiduously stripped each specimen of its previous owner’s identity. Faces have been removed or sufficiently deconstructed to be indiscernible. (Eerily, the plastination process preserves hair, eyelashes, and even tattoos, reminders that the figures are still individual, if anonymous.)
Anonymity is a legal necessity as much as an aesthetic choice. A cadaver with an identity is a corpse, and a room full of corpses would constitute an illegal cemetery."
Thanks for bringing that up Omni. It underscores the fact that, unlike more reactionary media outlets would have it, von Hagens' intent is primarily one of science.
Which is good because, really, he is a bad artist.
And you're right Sausage, de-mystifying death is one of the MANY reasons he should be commended. I got so caught up in criticizing his merchandising, I forgot to mention all that [positive] stuff.
And of course Luke you just know you're gonna get comments about how the previous German deathmonger was himself quite a bad artist. This was, however, well before all the mass-produced death.
I'm gonna have to be the voice of dissent and say that he's a really bad scientist too.
He's taking away good cadavers that could be used for research or even spare parts and using them for a worn out shock effect.
I just don't see that much of a research benefit to the plasticization of humanity. I agree that most of the displays are trite, and his taste in clothes is terrible, but the real problem here is what he's convincing the donor of. People, I'm sure, are donating their bodies for "pure educational altruism, others to give their lives lasting meaning". It's just unfortunate that von hagens has neither the creativity nor the scientific responsibility to do anything interesting with his hundreds of cadavers.
oh my gosh. be my friend! i just found your blog while doing research for my fulbright proposal. i wanted to bring in something about controversial art and i thought maybe i'd have something with the whole cadaver art thing. anyways, am amused by this post. nice to meet you.
Alright, only if you'll be my friend.
Post a Comment
<< Home