In anticipation of our discussions about the ethics of displaying human remains, I thought it might be interesting to bring these two unfortunate chaps to your attention. I came across these figures when I was doing some research into anatomical teaching aids at the Royal Academy and I think their use and display also has ethical implications. As casts of executed, flayed criminals from the 18th century, can they be considered alongside what we might consider 'innocent' remains? Are they remains at all, or objects baring the trace of a body? Do they have historical value? Or have they become a bit side-show and macabre in a similar vein (if you'll excuse the pun) to Gunther von Hagens' plastinated figures? I think there are continuities to be drawn with other problematic material that our institutions have inherited, such as taxidemy and medical specimens.
There's some fascinating information about these two figures on the RA website, searching for 'Smugglerius'. I can't seem to post the specific links.
(Here's the link Rebecca:
Kindest regards..Mark)
Yuk!.....
ReplyDeleteactually, I quite like em....especially 'the dying gaul'....but you're right, they do raise some significant issues.....and remind me of Body Worlds (von Hagen's plastinated bodies)..which, by coincidence, we are also discussing in the 'dead' session....
mark
personally, i don't think they should be glorified in the way they have been, such as the way (According to the online article they have been placed in 'classical poses') however i do find it very interesting that the exhibtion has chosen to highlight that they were convicted criminals which i think does make it seem more of a spectacle, like a side-show, to look at them rather than to learn from them..?
ReplyDeleteIt does make me think of Marc Quinn though! (and in the same way i see his work as more of a spectacle!)
Natasha
We enter the field of ethics at our peril. How do we, and why should we, accept the curators vision? Do gallery visitors actually consider the impact of the display, how it relates to our culture and accepted norms?
ReplyDeleteGiven the labeling of the convicted criminals, how does society apply its morality? Is the curator and the gallery approach akin to that of the press in the UK? Are we headline grabbing, or are we challenging the audience?
Hello Chris!....welcome, Salford person, to the Leeds Museumblog....I don't know, but could the potential role of the museum be to disrupt our naturalized assumpions...(I'm thinking of that small exhibition at Manchester Museum that scratched at the surface of our assumptions of racial stereotypes?)...of course there's a tension there in such a project, given the (often) central role that the museum has played in structuring our perceptions?....anyway, welcome to the Blog...
ReplyDeletemark
Chris, i think i would suggest this is a case of attempted head-line grabbing - the controversy of going against our cultural norms is inevitably going to in itself! however, i think as Mark has suggeseted, these cultural norms have been structured by museums and curators.
ReplyDeleteim in different minds about it.but i definately would suggest it as a mere spectacle..
In this case, if we consider the 'original' function of these objects as a means of teaching anatomical form to art students in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they are anything but sensational. Although they have been displayed in contemporary exhibitions, both national and international, they were never intended for public consumption in the same way as von Hagens' figures (which have been subject to speculation as to alleged use of executed Chinese prisoners). Materially, these objects are mechanical reproductions, they are representations. Perhaps our possible distaste is formed by the textual material surrounding them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the role of the museum as a "Cabinet of Curiosities" still stands as a valid one? I am all for provocation (one of Tilden's principles), and personally consider that perhaps many displays in museums and galleries are too safe. The visit to the place of culture (whatever it may be) can be a race from the car park, through the displays, to the shop and toilets. Forcing the visitor to take a few minutes to stop and wonder, think and react, are essential if visits are not going to be 'been there, seen the place, bought the T shirt' experiences.
ReplyDeletebut perhaps in the will to make the visitor stop and think or challenge (by reducing exhibitions to just being controversial) the museum is just making a spectacle and not a source to learn from? maybe this is just the museum changing course now the exhibitions are too 'safe'?
ReplyDeletealso, as i am watching the news regarding over 135 bodies (as yet) being found in a whole villages in bush fires in Australia, and people being bombed in war zones- glorifying the bodies of these criminals seems even more wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would argue against this idea that these objects (and they are objects) are 'glorified', or that it is appropriate to attach the signifier 'criminal' to them. The positioning which alludes to classical statuary is, if anything, neutral within the context of their 'original' use and production, not celebratory. I would argue that it too problematic to equate the ethical values between such different historical epochs.
ReplyDelete