Professor Von Hagen's Autopsy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Anthony

Refugee
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
1,538
Location
London, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2493291.stm

For those of you who live in the UK, you MUST have at least heard of Von Hagen and his Body Works, actual bodies being displayed internally externally, dead foetuses on display, brains and nerves shown in full glory, the inner muscles, tissues, bones etc. I have gone to see the Body Works, and I must say that I found it incredibly fascinating, amazing in its academic detail, innovative in its artistic approach; I am one of those who hail Von Hagen as a visionary.

As if that wasn't controversial enough, tonight Britain was privy to the first live and televised autopsy for the first time. I am watching it right now on Channel 4; this is a real autopsy and it is certainly graphic, despite the fact that Von Hagen may well be arrested for conducting the autopsy.

What do you think? Is it pure sensationalism, or is there an element of education involved? Morbid and depraved, or enlightening and life-altering?

I think Von Hagen is not only brave, but incredibly intelligent in the way he manipulates the audience with showmanship - and why not? No one is making anyone attend the autopsy, though there are plenty of people present and even more watching across the country. In doing this, I believe Von Hagen is helping to conquer the final taboo; Death.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
His work is not unlike Damien Hirst's which I like. Too bad I can't see pictures of it but the wonderful thing about conceptual art is that one can talk about it without actually seeing the physical product. Yes, it is sensationalism, as well as macabre, and enlightening--it is all those things.

Art & Science have always been two sides of the same coin. Hundred of years ago, the Old Masters performed similar (albeit clandestine) activities to study the human anatomy, to be able to render the human body more realistically. Today, Von Hagen & Hirst are doing the same thing, openly, and it is considered sensationalist. I think it's interesting how what was once a creative process in artmaking has become the subject of art.


foray
 
I would really enjoy seeing something like that. I'm pretty squirmish when it comes to blood and guts on a live person, but since dead people don't bleed, I think I could handle watching an autopsy.

In 10th grade, our biology teacher dissected a deer (he does it every year) (yes, I live in the midwest) and it was REALLY interesting.

My sister is going to be a forensic investigator and she will take a trip down to what's known as "the body farm" in Virginia soon. There, they plant bodies in situations that are common murder scenes - in a car, in a swamp, in a car in a swamp, buried in different climates - and monitors the rate of decomposure and the like. Really interesting stuff that.


Sensationalism? No, I don't think so, because people aren't going to start a "let's dissect!" craze. Or they will and I'll be terribly wrong.

But I do think it's pretty educational - at least it's interesting.
 
Yes, and it generally starts unfathomable trends.


I.E Madonna...her dress in the 80s was sensationalism then girls were dumb enough to wear it.


Or was that an example? Does she count as an artist?

Anyway, that was where my point was headed.
 
Wish I could watch that...
Von Hagen's stuff reminds me of the things on diplay at the Mutter Museum, I forgot who did them, but a way long time ago some guy was digging up ppls graves, then skinning them and turning them into art...also couldn't find any pictures, but there's one of a man riding a horse that's just astonishing.
 
It was absolutely amazing.

He started with opening up the chest and removing the lungs and liver, and analysing how they had been affected by the man's lifestyle which consisted of heavy-smoking and alcoholism. He then proceeded to the opening of the head and removing the brain, carefully explaining the functions of the various organs and how they are affected by the body and its functions.

At the beginning, though, some fool remarked about his wearing a hat through it all; "wouldn't it be respectful to the dead to REMOVE the hat?!" He exclaimed rather angrily.

Professor Von Hagens' eyes raised from under his hat, pointed to a portrait of surgeons behind him, and cooly said; "I am being respectful to the professionals who came before me, and those who will come after me." To the applause of the auditoriam.

Very eloquent, very cool. It was truly affecting and meaningful work.

Ant.
 
i thought sex with animals was the final taboo

I hope I eventually get to see a tape of that, Ant; sounds fab.

Since we're on the topic of art, I don't think talking about Madonna would be irrelevant. Ok, I regard (present day) Madonna an artist because I don't take into account merely her music. I've learned that being an artist does not involve the 'products'/artworks one churns out. Rather, it is the attitude, personality, the process. It's hard to describe the criteria, but my gut can tell that she has matured enough to be dubbed 'Artist'.


foray
 
You've got a point, foray, but with that criteria ANYONE who's got a big enough ego and a deficient amount of inebitions can be called an artist, because they find it easy to portray 'attitude'. If that criteria were taken into account, all of those rappers who have issues and, really, just complain and moan about how rotten life has been to them can be called artist. Eminem, who I completely hate, could be called an artist - God forbid.

My theory with our modern preconceptions of what art is and what makes a person an artist is that the definition has become very VERY non-selective. Our definition of what makes art is now reduced to anything that remotely pleases the eye, or anything there to cater anything remotely familar. Oh yes, and always the 'attitude'.

I don't know, I agree that the process is extremely important, and the person behind it all as well. However, the characteristics of the person itself I believe, is a lot more than just attitude. Yes, its important, but I don't consider the person an artist unless the attitude is aimed at something; does the person have anything to say?

Maddona is a very VERY smart woman, who has always been able to manipulate the press and manage to cultivate a great sense of showmanship, or perhaps showWOMANship. However, I think her far too shallow to be an artist. She never wrote her own songs or had that much to do with her own creative process - I do believe she was far more mechanical in the way she approached her work. One minute she was material girl, then she thought it would be great to get into the movies (and though she is quite awful as an actress, she still keeps trying) and then it has been one career move after another - all because she had a few catchy tunes. Maybe she does have character or attitude, but its STILL not enough.

Ant.
 
I saw this reported on the TV news here last night

I'm as squeamish as all get up....have to face it one day soon.
I did think that seeing the inside of a smoke damaged lung would be of benefit to someone like me or fat-filled arteries.
Billy Connolly actually cured me recently of over-eating ( inspiration can come so unexpectedly) talking about "5 x 3 course meals stacked up in there. Slow metabolism INDEED!!"

So I can see the educational benefits, but it did seem to have a 'spectacle" feel to it. It was a very brief report on the TVnews, they mainly showed the people in the audience who were reacting squeamishly, they didn't give the Prof. much air time to explain himself( as usual). My Q was about the corpses and their families. I presume they are all in support of the Prof. and his methods.
My immediate reaction is one of discomfort...having never experienced such a thing.....but I think that is his point?
We have a brave lonely doctor here, fighting the good fight about euthanasia. He is despised by so many, I don't know how he keeps on.
 
Did I not mention other things besides attitude? It's not interchangeable with personality, charisma and other stuff. Also, what I mean by this word is not the same as you are using it, Ant. I mean neither a 'gangsta' attitude nor an exhibitionist attitude; rather, I meant it in its original meaning. The attitude an artist has toward everything -- her subject, work, life.

You're very right in saying that too many people misuse the term artist. I'm trying to convey my definition of an artist but I'm finding it easier to do that by describing what an artist is not. One is not an artist merely by producing pretty things, or by having a BFA, or even by painting daily.

I have a friend, one of the most brilliant artists I know, who does not paint much. When he makes a sculpture, it is cardboard pieces simply arranged. He scrawls makebelieve dialogues and snippets of conversations and pins them on the wall. Nothing in his work, to me, shows a care for a finished product. Conceptual art, then? - Well, there doesn't seem to be any coherent idea in his work. It is all haphazard. But one FEELS a coherent theme, somehow, even if it's unintelligible, because it all originates from him. And one FEELS that his work is indeed an artwork because he is an artist -- not a person making art. He could put a pile of junk on the floor and it would still be art. However, if another person did the same thing, it would remain junk. He could work as an accountant and still be an artist.

If I were asked to list the qualities that I've found universal in true artists, I'd mention "obsessiveness" first.


foray
 
Having said that, I consider (present day) Madonna an artist primarily because my gut tells me so. It comes from what I see and hear about her. Granted, she is not the best of artists, by no means am I saying that; but I do think she has enough depth for it. Contrary to what you think, yes she does write her own lyrics, she conceived the Drowned World tour, and very much has control over her image.

I consider post-Evita Madonna an artist because only now has she been able to manifest in her music her genuine concerns. Before that, it was all about criticizing the Church and basically being rebellious, I felt. Now, though, it seems like she has finally gotten her act together and made Art a part of her life, not just an extension of it. I suppose it's that Kabbalah jazz she's into :) that has helped her cohere these 2 things together. Once art & life come together, there you have the 'obsession' criteria I said earlier.

More meanderings...

Perhaps being an artist is like having good fashion sense. There are those who put on hip clothes yet can never pull it off. There are those who put on drab clothes and still seem hip because it's inherent. Finally, there are those who are unhip at first but learn how to be. I guess Madonna falls under the latter?

...


foray
 
Back
Top Bottom