Human Skin "Art" to Hang Someday in Australian National Gallery?
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Donation of Human Skin to Art Gallery
A tattooed man plans to donate his skin to the Australian National Gallery when he dies. From the story: An Australian man whose body is covered in tattoos has pledged to donate his skin to the National Gallery when he dies. Retired teacher Geoff Ostling displays his tattooed skin at his home in Sydney, Australia. The 65-year-old has pledged to donate his skin to the National Gallery in Canberra after his death...
"People can be squeamish about it. Portraits painted on human skin hang in galleries around the world. They don't tell you that, of course, and valuable books were also covered in human skin."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:05 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
Interesting point about the books covered in human skin -- wouldn't that have been something done at Medieval monasteries? I remember going to a church in Rome that was decorated entirely with the bones of monks. The point was to remind whoever saw it that this life was temporary, and that only the afterlife was permanent. Maybe hanging this guy's tattooed skin sends a different message, but if the one's OK, why not the other? Or is neither OK?
I have been to the Rome church too. As you noted, it was intended to remind one that life is short, and as a famous tomb in New Orleans has it, (I paraphrase less artfully), I was once as you are now, and soon you shall be like me. It sought to induce people to live righteous lives. I think today it would be totally out of place. Indeed, if the Catholic Church advertised for people to donate their bodies so they could be boiled and the bones extracted (however they do it) to set up art displays, there would be an outcry.
I think the idea of "tan me hide when I die Clyde" and hang it in the art museum is different, particularly in a time in which the intrinsic importance of human life is under such threat.
Perhaps it comes down to, "Is nothing sacred anymore?" The strong implication is that we are just meat on the hoof and that all that matters in life is "identity."
Ew! A photo will more than suffice, more than suffice.
From a Christian perspective, once we are dead, the exceptional element that sets us apart from 'meat on the hoof' is also lost.
There is no dignity in death. The only dignity that remains is whatever legacy that we created while we yet lived.
For Mr. Ostling, the only legacy he may leave behind is the tortuous artwork decorating his skin. I would hope he has a greater legacy that that - an eternal one. Nevertheless, his desire to pass his legacy on should not be dismissed as a contradiction of human exceptionalism.
Perhaps, and more significantly, the desire to leave a legacy is one of the defining elements that does set us apart from the animals, and is one of the touchstones of human exceptionalism.
Bradster: Agreed, that what makes humans exceptional is in life. But the body, and what is done with it and how it is done, matters. That is why we cover cadavers at crime scenes with a sheet, out of respect for the person that was. We treat our dead differently than we treat animal cadavers, in part, because of the exceptional nature of human life.
To hang human skin in an art museum would be to disrespect that distinction--even with consent. I mean, was the human skin lampshade only wrong because the skin came from a murder victim instead of a volunteer?
Not the alarmist, as I know this isn't the intent, but this reminds me of the Nazis' hideous experiments with making lampshades out of people's skin during the Holocaust...
Y'know, it was bad enough when people were turning the cremains of their dearly departed - dogs, cats, significant others - into designer jewelry.
Well tattooing and piercing was tolerated. What did anyone think would happen. As for the monks' bones in Rome, as with relics, there wasn't that kind of death-oriented stuff pre-Christianity -- which was the greatest time in human history. Then anyone wonders why there's a death culture.
A society that made tattooing and piercing illegal would be an interesting one -- and on the right track. Women shouldn't even pierce their ears, period. Or men. I know, I'm a simple person, but I look at what was going on, what was permitted, and then what happened; that's all that's necessary.
A society that made tattooing and piercing illegal would be an interesting one -- and on the right track. Women shouldn't even pierce their ears, period. Or men. I know, I'm a simple person, but I look at what was going on, what was permitted, and then what happened; that's all that's necessary.
Lanthe, A society that made tattooing piercing illegal would be interesting? Yes, it would be an interesting totalitarian or religious state. What happened to that little notion of freedom? How about self expression? Would you like to live in lets say the Middle East where women do not have the same rights as men. Body art and modification has been around for well over 40,000 years. For complex reasons we humans have always had a penchant for modifying our body. I suggest you try to be a bit more open minded.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home