Last November, The LIpstick Chronicles published a guest blog on the subject of The Bodies exhibition. Since then, many voices have contributed to the backblog, and ABC News has opened up the story.  And our "comments" section has generated some terrific dialogue. Here's Lila Shaara's original blog on the subject. 

Of Two Minds

by guest blogger, Lila Shaara, author whose debut novel, Every Secret Thing is available here.

You may have heard of "Bodies: An Exhibition," in which preserved ("plastinated") organs and entire human bodies are displayed, the latter flayed and posed. It's now in Pittsburgh, where I live.  My first reaction was ambivalent disgust. I'm an anthropology professor, and I see a woeful lack of understanding in my students of the basic fact that we are animals (primates specifically, just like chimps and baboons!)  You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, by how few young Americans have any real understanding of where their food comes from. Their connection with death is even more peculiar; they've seen thousands of murders on TV and in film, mostly fictitious unless they're fans of snuff films. On the other hand, unlike those in most cultures, few of us have bathed our Aunt Hester's dead body to prepare it for burial, unless we happen to be morticians.

So I have some sympathy with any attempt to drive the fact of our animal nature home to us. But the ads for "Bodies" are designed to shock; a man with no skin stands with his hands on his hips in a sporty pose, only he is split completely down the middle; his two halves are joined by a fat, bumpy string of internal organs. The majority of the exhibit's venues around the country are not museums or universities, but Expo Marts and exhibition centers, where the goal of profit-making is clear. On the Carnegie Science Center's website, there's a lot of highfalutin' talk about the appreciation for healthy living it brings the viewer, the marveling at our inner workings, and how much you can learn about human anatomy. You can learn as much from a good textbook, but I suspect the real motive for many is the same one that makes movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Saw IV hits, and the Carnegie is exploiting it for revenue. But I don't tell people that they shouldn't go just because I think it's gross and prurient. That's just me.

The thought that children are being taken to this by the score appalls me. Mine certainly won't be going. But this won't be the first time that I could be accused of worrying too much about how quickly our culture wants our children's innocence ripped from them or wants to turn them into voracious consumers. So I would never tell other people that they shouldn't take their own kids. That's  just me.

The specimens are reportedly from "unclaimed" Chinese cadavers, and I had to wonder if that was justification enough for them to be used in such a way, without consent, even if it's legal. These people likely didn't have many breaks when they were alive. Now their flayed carcasses are posed kicking a soccer ball for the edification of overfed suburban teenagers. I find that disturbing. But maybe that's just me.

But the main objection my husband and I shared with many other people was the issue of the bodies' true origins. A hospital in Dalian, China, "plastinates" specimens and then sells them. There are horrifying rumors all over the internet and other news media that the Chinese government is "harvesting" bodies and organs from political prisoners. Such abuses are not inconsistent with everything else that we know the Chinese government is willing to do to its citizens. (According to CBC Canada, an investigation by former MP David KIlgour and humans rights lawyer David Matas found that 41,500 organ transplants performed in China came from "unexplained sources.")

The Carnegie's response to these concerns has stayed the same since the issue was brought up. The short version is that the doctor that does the plastinating says that no donor died of trauma, and the guy at Premier Exhibitions (the owner of "Bodies") agrees with him. This was, of course, not good enough for many thinking people. Then David Hilldenbrand, CEO of the Carnegie Museums in Pittsburgh wrote an editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about how those who objected to "Bodies" didn't understand what art is supposed to be about. Except this was the first time the thing was called art. And he didn't address the actual controversy; instead, he just said that art is supposed to make people argue. That's what it's for. And then you know what he said? "We've been asked similar questions [which questions are those?] about a number of the [Andy Warhol Museum's] electic, sometimes gut-wrenching exhibitions . . . Why the Abu Ghraib photos? Why an exhibition about lynching in America? . . . I shudder to think of the day when our museums explore only those topics that make us feel all happy and comfortable."

What? The point of the Abu Ghraib photograph exhibit was to illuminate human rights horrors. The point of "Bodies" is quite possibly to profit from them. At the very least, the exhibit's stated function is to show in exquisite detail which organs go where and what your nerve fibers look like; these are unlikely to stimulate any tough special questions. Hillenbrand's argument suggests that he is either alarmingly clueless or jaw-droppingly cynical.

So Rob and I wrote a letter to the newspaper. We didn't expect that it would start a groundswell of interest in China's human rights abuses. We just thought it was the right and ethical thing to do, to shake our tiny fists at a gargantuan injustice. But I was shocked at the reaction of a number of people; "I'm going to go but I respect your opinion, even though it differs from mine." In this context, what does "I don't agree with you," mean?  Does the speaker disagree that such things could happen in China? Then he's simply ill-informed. Or does she disagree with the notion that a government killing its citizens for profit is bad? I have a sinking feeling that what's actually going on is that an increasing number of Americans think that "But I want to," is a reasoned argument.

Rob suggested an interesting hypothetical scenario. Say the "unclaimed" bodies had been sold to an American entrepreneur by an Iraqi doctor. What if allegations were made that some of the bodies were those of unconsenting Americans, lost through the vicissitudes of war? Would those "Bodies" patrons be less eager to plunk down their twenty-two bucks? My guess is, you bet your Hummer.

But you know, that's just me.

What about you?

For the ABC News 20/20 coverage: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4284629&page=1

For a thorough look at the issues from the perspective of a museum employee who resigned over this issue:  http://mysite.verizon.net/vzexqyla/anti-bodies-virtual-picket-line/

The Kilgour-Matas Report: http://www.organharvestinvestigation.net/index.html   

 

Comments

[Suzanne]

OK, the med student is checking in here again... I feel the need to address your comment about learning anatomy. I preface this with the fact that I'm grumpy studying this late (early?!), so I may be a tad sensitive.
However, there is no textbook that will teach you the interrelation of anatomy like an actual cadaver. Netter (arguably the anatomy atlas of choice in my circles) has lovely images, but is inadequate for teaching function, for example.
So for what it's worth, the validity of the objective of this exhibit seems sound to me. I guess the question is whether or not the acquisition of the cadavers was legal/moral. If the source of suspicion is chiefly horrifying internet rumors...Well, I'd consider the source before making conclusions about their origin. If the origin is sound, why not allow the public the best tool for learning anatomy?
I'd also like to mention that showing kids an anatomy exhibit (and I'm assuming we're not talking about preschoolers or something) may not necessarily equate with having their "innocence ripped from them." Which part do you feel teenagers haven't seen? Or which haven't they heard about in detail in Biology and/or Health class?
FTR, I respect your opinion as well.
Yikes! Sorry for the long rant.

[Kathy Reschini Sweeney]

Welcome to TLC, Lila!

I've read some of the local coverage on this exhibit at the Carnegie. When we asked our teenagers if they wanted to go, the older one reminded us she'd already seen the exhibit on a field trip to DC, and the younger one doesn't care. The person who really wants to see it is my Mom. Since she's in her 60s, we're going to let her make her own decision.

Suzanne - hang in there! Most docs (and PTs and other grad level health care professionals) say the same thing about anatomy.

[Ladytink_534]

Ewww! That's really gross! You won't catch me there I promise.

[Lila S]

Okay, so maybe you can learn more about anatomy from seeing stuff. But I've heard more than one former med student say that if they'd posed their gross anatomy cadavers in the same ways that they do in this exhibit, they'd have been in deep dirt, as it were.
But again, the issue of whether or not you think the exhibit is educational is secondary to the ethics of the whole thing. Which is my point. And is the one that people seem least inclined to comment about extensively. Yes? No? That's just been my experience.

[Lila S]

By the way, thanks for the welcome, Kathy! Long time reader, first time blogger!

[Harley]

Lila, welcome!
First, I want to read your book, just based on your writing in the blog today. Second, i feel like I "should" want to see this exhibit (but then I also feel like I should be seeing more opera and reading more op ed pieces, but I haven't gotten around to it, and i probably won't see this exhibit either) but in fact, I'm kind of put off by the idea of it. A very smart friend of mine, not known for her squeamishness, had a big "ick" reaction to it. I don't know if I'd be fascinated by the details of anatomy, or distressed by thinking about the way in which these people died, and if they mind their "shells" being used in this way. Kind of like the zoo versus anti-zoo debate. Love the animals, hate that they're behind bars, wonder about their acquisition and treatment and who profited.

I love this line: an increasing number of Americans think that "But I want to," is a reasoned argument.

No kidding.

[Lila S]

Thanks, Harley, (and I'm a fan, by the way, but maybe this isn't the venue for gushing)(or maybe it is, I don't know). An awful lot of my students don't seem to think that information or experience or context or anything at all gives more or less weight to an opinion, either. Sigh. I blame illegal immigrants. (The last was said snarkily. Please don't hurt me.)

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

Hi, Lila:
Great blog, and I'm excited about checking out your book. I may have a bit of a different perspective here. As background, in case it matters, I'm a biology professor with a major appreciation for anatomy (human and otherwise). Please excuse the length of this response; I think this is an important topic and worth spending some time on!

I first came across the cadaver-as-art concept in the context of the original Body Worlds project (http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html). Its founder, Gunther von Hagen, developed the plastination techniques for use in his medical school courses; he later expanded the project as a combination of art and education. The bodies he uses are all, as far as I can tell, legitimately donated with full consent of the individuals involved.

I saw the exhibit in London several years ago and was absolutely stunned by it. I don't know what his current exhibit is like, but that one had two main components. One was a series of "halls", each devoted to a single anatomical system. Healthy organs were presented along with those affected by various diseases and other conditions; where appropriate, displays of medical interventions (pacemakers, surgical fixes, etc.) were also included. Those were instructional in a very classic kind of way.

The more fascinating exhibit was the one with the full cadavers, variously dissected and posed. The first thing that struck me was the brilliance of the dissection work and the glory of the anatomy it revealed. More importantly, though, was how each body was displayed in a very specific context, designed not only to highlight the structure and function of the anatomy, but to pose important and meaningful questions about the nature of the human animal.

"The Thinker", for example, was a cadaver with only the central nervous system dissected. The back had been opened along the spinal column and the spinal cord and nerves revealed. The back of the skull was removed so the connection to the brain could be visualized. Gorgeous work, great anatomy lesson. The impact though, came from the context: the cadaver seated at a table and poised over a chess board. The questions the display asked are pretty clear. Is our ability to think, reason, plan, develop strategy, enjoy the thrill of mental battle simply a function of nerves and synapses? What is the mind, if not the machine that lies within the cranium?

Each of the displays, in its own way, asked the larger question: what is it that makes us human? Are we more than the sum of our parts? And I think the exhibit as a whole went a step further, to ask how our lives are shaped by the organic machine in which we reside and how we derive meaning as that machine changes over time.

Now, having said all that, I can also say without hesitation that I have no interest in seeing the Chinese display for exactly the reasons you've outlined. It is one thing to allow people to choose how to celebrate their own lives and deaths. It's quite another to exploit the dead for commercial gain.

Sorry for gassing on -- great topic!

[Elaine Viets]

Welcome, Lila, and thanks for a thought-provoking blog. We have a similar exhibit here, and though I know it's valuable for research, the whole idea creeps me out. No, I'm not going.

[Suzanne]

This may gross some of you out more, but a few of the docs that handle the cadavers in our lab have been doing so for decades, and thus are far less reverent with the handling of the parts than you would expect. I think that's worse than posing a specimen once for plasticizing to show how muscles, tendons, and ligaments pull on one another.
I'm really curious about the origin of specimen question, too. If there were a reputable source attached to your claim that these bodies are being harvested illegally for this exhibit, you'd have a slam-dunk argument. But without that it sounds like rumor. I believe your blog reference is to this article http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/06/china-falungong.html but it doesn't make a connection to the Bodies exhibit as far as I can tell. If I've missed something, I'll take my humble pie a la mode.
Kerry, that was a beautiful description of Body Worlds.
Kathy: thanks for the encouragement. I really must go back to studying now that I've had a nap.

[ArkansasCyndi]

Hi Lila. Your book sounds great.

I've heard about these displays. Never seen one. However, I was under the impression that the people used had donated their bodies for this use. If not, and indigent or unclaimed bodies are being use, then I think it changes the whole situation. Donated - acceptable to me. Indigent or unclaimed - unacceptable. But that's just me :)

As a nurse in another life, my nursing school was one of the few that let us dissect human cadavers. The class was given a male and female - both of who had donated their bodies for this reason. I have to say, SEEING things FOR REAL, versus seeing pictures and reading descriptions in books is a world of difference. For example, when I saw the actual size of the uterus (unpregnant unterus), I was astounded by how small it was. No description would have left the same impression. Personally, I found it fascinating.

Great thought-provoking post

[michele]

Welcome, Lila, and really interesting blog!!

I'm a little confused about the facts. Is this a single exhibit or are we talking about many exhibits of this nature? Based on Kerry's description, the exhibit sounds really wonderful and mind-broadening. Whether it's put on for profit or not probably wouldn't affect my reaction. I can still love a book or a film even if the creator was making money off it. Whether the bodies were obtained in some unethical or illegal way would definitely affect my willingness to see the exhibit, but I'd want to know if there's real evidence of that. Internet rumors aren't what I'd consider real evidence.

[Josh]

You know, this post reminds me of a song that I posted back on the Halloween Song blog of, I think, the Friday before Halloween. Was that October 26? (Checking calendar) Yes.

I'm not reposting it, but presumably it is still in the ether somewhere.

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

For clarification -- the Chinese exhibit Lila is referring to is not the same one I saw in London. Dr. von Hagen originated the technology, idea, art form, whatever. The one Lila mentions is similar, but suffers from the critical ethical issue she described.

[Lila S]

Sorry to ignore so many excellent responses; I had child-related issues that took a few hours. As Kerry points out, the exhibit here is not the only one of its type exhibit, and is owned by "Premier Exhibits", which is run by a man named Arnie Geller. I understand that he used to be Dr. von Hagen's partner, but who knows. You are correct, Suzanne, that the provenance of the bodies was not the specific subject of the Canadian story. If you want more than internet rumor, look up archived articles on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I know there was a lot of coverage in local papers when the exhibit went to Seattle, San Francisco and Tampa. You can also just look on the Carnegie's own website, where they acknowledge the controversy. Their response is simply that they have documentation that the bodies are "unclaimed." I have personal issues with "unclaimed" corpses being used in this way in the first place, but that's just me. The bigger problem is, according to the Post Gazette, that the so-called documentation is simply a letter signed by the doctor who does the plastinating at Dalian in the first place. Many people, including Elaine Catz, who was a director at the Carnegie, felt that this was not sufficient, given China's human rights abuses and the likelihood of the profitable harvesting of organs from Falun Gong practitioners and other political prisoners. Catz in fact resigned over the issue. So, do I have proof that these bodies are executed prisoners? No. But the questions being asked are reasonable ones, and the Carnegie's (and Premier's) only answers are pretty darn feeble, given the magnitude of the potential ickiness.

Did I just rewrite the blog? Sorry. The truth is, I don't know jack. But I don't like the Carnegie's elitist dismissiveness about the whole thing, either. But then, I'm kind of a hothead.

[Lila S]

Sorry for the number of times I wrote "exhibit" in that last post.

[Mary Storyteller]

This exhibit is at the St. Louis Science Center right now, and I'm staying far away. I took chemistry rather than biology in high school and chose teaching, not nursing, as a career because I just don't have the desire to see exposed body parts. A letter to the editor pointed out that the many photos in the Post have already shown many of us more than we wanted to see. I had lunch with retired teachers, and several were planning to go as a group . . . but I won't be joining them.
Lila, you have raised important issues about consent. Many have also questioned whether this exhibit shows respect, a deep issue. I found it interesting that various Catholic bishops have expressed differing views about whether it is appropriate. In St. Louis the bishop said no school field trips but that parents could decide for their own children. It's complicated. Thanks for posting.

[Mary Storyteller]

I'm off in a bit to tell stories for Tellabration at the Cherry Street Artisan coffee house on 9th Street in Columbia, MO. (in case anyone will be near there about 7 p.m. tonight). Tellabration is a world-wide event, so there is probably a storytelling session somewhere near each of you, if you'd like to hear some good stories. I was invited to Columbia as "out of town" talent. It's always interesting to see a new place!

[Lila S]

"It's complicated." That's it in a nutshell.

[Harley]

You know what interests me is how some of us are fine with blood and guts and and others of us, no matter how courageous, faint at the sight of a child vomiting, or cannot change a diaper. The Ick Factor is so personal.

In fact, I have no idea if the actual exhibit(s) would intrigue or disgust me, which in itself kinda makes me want to go (but I probably won't.) Okay, back to writing my novel.

[Kathy Reschini Sweeney]

Is the Body Works project Kerry describes still around?

And just how freaking many bodies are we talking about here? I mean, the one at the Carnegie is pretty big, and if there is another one in St. Louis, are they the same company?

I'm sure I could look this up, but I just finished cleaning out the refrigerators and doing the upftont Thanksgiving shopping, and I can't do anything else right now other than listen to music and catch up on the blog.

Josh - you are one sick agent. Probably why we love you.

[Lila S]

I think it's in NYC too; the dates were sometime in November,I'm pretty sure. BTW, I looked up the song in the archives. You're right, Kathy. Josh, you are sick, but in a good way. (Sick is the new cool, but being on the cutting edge of modern culture, you all probably knew that.)

[Kerry, the Martial Tart]

There are currently 3 Body Worlds exhibits taking place: one each in Charlotte, San Jose, and St. Louis. According to the website, the poses differ in each, according to its unique theme; I'm guessing the basic "organ system halls" are still pretty much the same. Also according to the website, Von Hagen has several thousand living individuals on his donor roster and something like 490 deceased either on display or in process. His donor program is monitored by two ethics commissions and run by the Institute for Plastination in Heidelberg.

No Thanksgiving shopping for us this year -- our kitchen has been pretty well demolished. Technically, we still have an oven and stove, and some counter space. In fact, it's just kind of tough to think about trying to cook much more than the random can of soup in there. Plus, all the stuff that was in the kitchen is stacked all over the two downstairs rooms, so there's no good place to sit and eat.

Guess we're feeding the local restaurant trade for the next month!

[Harley]

I kinda want someone to demolish my kitchen.

[Josh]

You see, Harley? That canyon fire could have done more than just ruined the commission of the agent who had the listing for the castle place.