Guenther von Hagens' cadaver porn

I'm pretty much an atheist, i'm pro-choice, and i think just about every arguement against gay marriage is ridiculous and biased. that being said, i completely agree with this post. This guy is sick. he could use the same excuse about breaking taboos and expanding the mind to take pictures of himself having sex with children, but he'd still be a pedophile.

Saint Andeol,

ON what grounds do you pronounce this man sick? What is the basis of your judgement of him? Why is your condemnation of his action valid, but opposition to gay marriage is "silly"?

Can you clear this up?

Correction to the post above:

It reminds me of some of the imaginative exercises used by ascetics to dampen the strength of sexual impulses within them: to picture WHAT lies beneath the beautiful surface of the skin, the disgusting array of organs, blood, sinew, etc

For people like my self (fitness professional) it really is an unimaginable treat to see how the body is actually constructed.
Rather than looking at pictures or 3D images we can actually see the muscle fibre direction, tendon structure and line of pull (to name just a few areas of interest) in far more detail than we can through other means.

Any one who works in professions that deal with the human body and were not fortunate to do dissection on cadavers, this is a must.

As for the poses, well he does need to bring people into his exhibits and the negative or positive press will only benefit that.

If your faith or moral standing does not agree with the use of bodies after to death, just don't bother going and leave some space for those that will really benefit.

I don't have anything against using these objects for medical purposes - it's the fact that they are a public spectacle that I find objectionable. It would be a different matter if Hagens had restricted the display of his bodies within medical schools only, instead of turning them into a vastly profitable commercial enterprise that caters to morbid desires.

Or, if Hagens had simply designed incredibly realistic "models" - i.e. if the objects in question looked the same as bodies but were not actual corpses, I do not think that it would have attracted the same level of interest and fascination. Body-worldsmania (not dead bodies, but an "incredible simulation") would not have the same commercial appeal as Body Worlds the original.

What fascinates me about this story is that even with something so clearly wrong and off base, there are people that so steep in moral relativism as to pretty much defend this. I am curious as to what the limits of what some people think is okay, then again maybe I don't want to know the answer. Von Hagens is simply a degenerate creep. I am all for science and learning about the human body and am no prude when it comes to sex, but this is just disturbing.

Rod: I agree with you. It's treating human bodies as objects. The danger is not to the dead but what is does to the thinking of the living. I find this horrific.

I guess the next step is for this crazy man to actually kill the objects of his "art." Roger Corman's movie, "A Bucket of Blood," didn't have nothing on this guy.

“Well, I would definitely object to the cadavers being minced, grilled, and served to the public.”

I think you’re being short sighted. Provided the cadavers were processed in a safe and sanitary fashion, what would be wrong with serving them for dinner? As long as people knew what they were eating, I can’t see what the problem is.

I wouldn’t partake, but why not make use of them?

Interestingly, the one government that I know of to ban the Body Worlds exhibit on grounds of immorality, is the Socialist government of Venezuela. It might surprise some but the Venezuelan government has taken a pretty firm line on vulgarity in popular culture (among other things, campaigning against scantily clad women in commercials, alcohol sales during Holy Week, breast implants, Halloween, and 'The Simpsons'). In this as in some other things, Rod might be surprised to find some unlikely allies on the Left. Not all of us on the Left are mindless libertines.

Re: I'm not clear on how a simple representation of the physical facts of reproduction qualifies as "porn," but I'm not too sanguine that I'll get a rational explanation in response to my query.

Of course not, Sigaliris. Because no doubt you consider 'irrational' any response that doesn't assume your basically materialist, physicalist, godless and soulless assumptions.

To which I can say, if that's rationalism then count me among the irrational.

Sex is by its nature both a spiritual and a carnal things- or if you prefer to put it that way, a carnal figure of a spiritual reality. To separate those two aspects, the spiritual and the carnal, is deeply unnatural and immoral.

To which I can say, if that's rationalism then count me among the irrational.

Since it went over your head, and Rod's, completely- Hagen's point is that despite denials, your variety of beliefs are materialist.

Perhaps Jillian can find a better way to further the cause of progress than by picking on Hector and Rod. Perhaps she can help John E. overcome his wholly irrational and unscientific aversion to the eating of human flesh, the consumption of which is doubtless an efficient way both to nourish ourselves with protein and to dispense with those undesirable stocks which pollute the gene pool with their biologically determined but nonetheless false belief in the inherent sanctity of life. And maybe sigaliris can help Jillian to do that, by volunteering herself as the chef who will make even the utterly unappetizing Jillian a palatable dish to that picky-eater and victim or backward taboos, John E.

Here's a hint: if you object to bodies being plasticized and put on display in, say, running positions as "distasteful" or "disrespectful" but find the positioning of those same bodies in a sexual context to raise the stakes to "satanic", you have what many would call "sexual issues".

Me? I wouldn't go see such an exhibit no matter what positions the bodes were in. Fully synthetic, accurate reproductions? I'd be first in line to see 'em.

Max, I think plasticized marriage rights have already happened, judging by the amount of silicone involved in many nuptial couplings these days.

A. Wagg, hey that was kind of funny.

Jillian, do you think you would cook up tender and juicy, or would you need to be marinated a while first?

Sigaliris, do you have a copy of 'To Serve Man'?

Yes, John E., I do! I even have an apron with an almost similar logo--"To Serve Fan"--which I got from the Chicago WorldCon bid of 2008. Most fans are a bit greasy, I fear. I, however, am free-range, all-natural, and pesticide free, and I feel confident that I'd be robust and flavorful, marinated in a tangy sauce and grilled. I refused to be served with fava beans and Chianti, however. Pfui! How about a nice Cotes du Rhone (or Chateauneuf du Pape if you want to get a bit more pricey) and a side of cassoulet? Grok me in fullness! I'd only be willing to share myself with members of my religion, however, and that's a small, select group at present.

How in the world do people get through the day, thinking of themselves as disgusting objects barely held together by skin, which in itself is only non-disgusting when it's all covered up? That level of self-hatred would make life impossible for me, and it certainly doesn't seem in keeping with ideas about a benevolent creator deity.

Welcome to Christianity.

Re: Ooookay . . . taking that as a given, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it, how would you go about telling children what those body parts are for and how they work?

"What I mean by it"?? I mean that the relationship of the lover and the beloved, is a figure of the relationship between Christ and His people. Thus, "a carnal figure of a spiritual raality." That's hardly an obscure idea, Sigaliris, it's one of the commonest themes historically in Christian literature. Go read some Dante.

As for explaining the birds and the bees to the kids, I intent to farm that out to my future wife...:)

By the way, I'm still waiting to see if the conservatives here are going to praise the Venezuelan government for being against sexy advertising, abortion, and cadaver porn, or if their loyalty to American hemispheric dominance outweighs their loyalty to modesty, dignity, and the unborn.

So I checked out this guy's site and here's what I found about this particular exhibition:

Dr. Gunther von Hagens, pioneer of contemporary exhibitions of real human bodies*, premieres in Heidelberg the exhibition KÖRPERWELTEN & Der Zyklus des Lebens, a presentation on the human life cycle, the arc of ageing and the latest findings in longevity science.

Link.

Now, it seems to me that the entire exhibition concerns the entirety of human life, from conception to birth to childhood to adulthood to marriage to aging to death. If the sexual act is placed in its proper context within the overall "cycle of life" then I'm not sure that I would necessarily characterize this as "porn", any more than I'd characterize this as porn.

I'm not sure that it's art either. And I would personally reserve judgment unless and until I saw the exhibition in question.

With respect to the treatment of the cadavers, well, do we have the same objection to donating one's Earthly remains to a medical school? After death, what is the important thing? The physical body or the soul? Let us not forget that our physical bodies will be subjected to all kinds of indignities after we die: decay, providing a home and larder for insects of various kinds, or perhaps consumption in fire, or whatever. Or perhaps (if you're generous) your organs will be removed and given to someone else so that they might live, or dissected to help train new physicians.

I've never had any strong feelings about the issue either way. Whatever is done with my body, the one thing that I do know is that I won't be around to worry much about it.

Hmmmm...this is an exceptionally tricky one...On the one hand, we have the teachings of the church re: the resurrection of the body, and burial the dead, etc. On the other hand, without some desecration of dead bodies, a great deal of classical art as we know it would not exist; modern medicine as we know it would not exist...and are these not good things? (I mean, I'm not a huge fan of doctors, but I sleep better at night knowing that they are there if I need one...)

And if it can be argued that these things constitute a good that is great enough to counterbalance the interdiction of the church for some, then why ought a layperson be denied? Is the human body such a holy of holies that only the high priests may access its secrets?

If our bodies are temples of the Lord, whose presence gives us life, then when that life departs, does the Lord still dwell within? If so, then perhaps all desecration of bodies for any purpose at all is wicked and worthy of damnation, leading us to question whether artists and doctors would be required to trade their immortal soul for what they do?

But if not, then it seems somewhat elitist and exclusionary to say that some may be blessed with the knowledge of the intimate workings of the human body, while others may not.

For myself, I thought the Body Worlds exhibit was one of the most amazing experiences I have ever had, and I would go again in a heartbeat. Not because I found it titillating or sensational, but because, as a cut-rate artist and a believer in natural medicine, I would never qualify for High Priesthood. Here was an extraordinary opportunity to see one of God's most complex and wonderful creations in a way I have never seen, nor likely ever will again. It was an intensely moving experience for me. I left not only with a greater knowledge of the human body, but with an overwhelming sense of the wonder and beauty of this exquisite lump of clay we inhabit.

Regarding the way it is done, I would agree, from the point of view of taste, that many of the weird things he does with his specimens range from extremely odd to downright distasteful. But aside from this injection of artistic notion, for me, the element of inglamorous truth prevails.

These human bodies, free from the censorship of being translated into mere plastic models, are incapable of hiding their realities--we see the smoker's lungs--we see the cirrhotic liver--the enlarged and sclerotic heart--the cross section of the obese man--we see all the injustices visited upon our bodies by our lack of respect for this "temple of the Lord"... Like the medieval faced with a winged skeleton, a reminder that he faces death, these models accuse us.

What about the model that shows only the blood vessels, from the enormous arteries down to the feathery capillaries? The models that show every nerve? The cross sections? These are truly wonderful and amazing views of our body that would otherwise be impossible.

The fact that these exhibitions are very 'exhibitionist' in nature is really the tragedy at the heart of this issue...because, according to my argument above, it would seem more just for museums around the world to own a few of these as a permanent exhibit, which would serve the purpose of truly affording this knowledge to all, and would remove the aspect of sensationalism. Then again, with the amount of time and effort it takes to make these exhibits, I can see how Von Hagens feels justified in benefiting from his work...for better or (as many here are saying) for worse.

I have avoided mention of the copulating corpes till now, because I think that is really a completely separate issue from the discussion above. As anyone can see from my glowing descriptions above, I do not feel that Body Worlds is satanic in the least. Misguided, perhaps. Sensationalistic, for many, probably. Satanic, not really, because I feel that truth does not serve Satan, and truth is there on display, like it or not.

Having the corpses in sexual poses, however, crosses an important line, because such a pose is wholly unnecessary in terms of anatomical knowledge. It undoubtedly crosses the line into the pornographic, since the word literally means "depiction (graphia) of fornication (porneia)". Unfortunately, the amount to which pornography pervades our culture has inured us to this simple fact. And it is the reduction of this life-generating act--a spiritual as well as carnal union between two people--into nothing more than a physical, recreational act--that is Satanic. (For many, this may sound like the remark of a puritan, but do some reading about satanic cults and you will begin to understand.) By taking what is actually the closest we can get to participation in the divine, and removing all such intent, the sex act becomes a desecration of this "Temple". And that is evil. (Incidentally, for those of you who didn't know, this is why the Church is opposed to contraceptives...)

Now, some of you may be quick to point out that by our earlier argument, if these dead bodies are no longer "temples", then the above argument is null and void. In this sense, the fact that he has done this to them is sick, but not evil. However, to display the sex act and call it either art or education is still a reduction of divinity to the commonplace. See above.

It is unfortunate that what could be a vehicle for good things has been sullied by this colossal instance of poor taste.

I saw Body Worlds in Montreal. My big take away was from a particularly obese body...you simply could not discern organs from muscles from bone without aid. That, and the lungs of smokers,.

Seeing, as St. Thomas demonstrated, is believing. Despite all the discussion about the harm done by obesity and smoking nothing prepared me for seeing their actual effects. And yes, that made a difference to how I live my life.

LOL and thanks for the compliment, Sig! You're so wonderful and I'm sorry I'm not around enough to return the favor, often. Hope you like the news out of Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire lately. Lots of little elves and elvettes have been very busy there for the past two to three years. :-)

Hmmm...culinary-wise, you're right, I'm probably most enjoyable well-grilled and served in a red wine mustard sauce, on a dish of spicy pearl couscous and slow-roasted tomatoes, with some sautéed spinach with pine nuts and golden raisins. Accompanied by a nice, civilized, better Beaujolais. And followed later by a sultry, dark, Californian pinot noir.... :D

George/Rufus/Wagglet, dear- I'm having a hard time deciding whether you're the most inept overage fifth grader at insult flirting, ever. Though I'm increasingly inclined to the view that you might be an unhappily closeted man with substantial inner royalty of a theatrical proclivity. I'm not sure I can really help you with that.

Your Name & Rat.

And what of "killing"? It would depend perhaps on what sort of"killing" you are talking about. One can imagine a suicide or a terminally ill person offering g herself up for the betterment of us all...perhaps as a delicacy on Jillian's table. There are different kinds of "killing".

I guess the next step is for this crazy man to actually kill the objects of his "art."

Where does he get his corpses from?

At least one of the businesses that was showing off plasticized corpses was accused of dealing with oppressive governments that were willing to provide a corpse on demand that met the business's needs. I have no idea whether that was settled and the companies now show all of the provenance of their corpses.

Freelunch,
I am not sure why we should care how or where the artist gets his bodies. What is your point?

Damien Hirst is brilliant. I am so sorry you found his exhibit "gross". If you consider "the way of all flesh" as an old saying goes, perhaps you might see the beauty in the efficiency of nature. Those rotting cows were beautiful in their own way. Too bad you missed the point.

The copulation merely added a whimsical flourish. Funny stuff.

When BODIES: The Exhibit came to Hawaii, it was hyped not just in newspaper ads but also on TV.

State Representative Marcus Oshiro introduced a bill banning such exhibits. I don't know if von Hagens's exhibit would have fallen under the ban, but I think it would've provoked much controversy.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/Bills/HB29_.pdf

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090128_Bill_would_restrict_display_of_human_bodies_parts.html

HB29 HD1 was deferred in March, however.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=29

"Where does he get his corpses from?"

They are all donated. The exhibit provides information to those who are interested in specifically donating their bodies for exhibition.

The same cannot be said of some Body World imitators, who have procured bodies through shady means (e.g. executed criminals) and that have also had some "preservation issues" at their exhibitions.

I agree with the poster above who said one of the most fascinating parts of previous exhibits is how you can see the influence of smoking and overeating on the body in the preserved specimens.