Thanks for the link on Abelardo Morell.

PS. I am not a number I am a human being! That is until I die and somebody digs up my skull and turns it into a toaster. I personally will not be any position to care, however it would be nice if the grave-robbing toaster makers (you know who you are) would wait until everyone who knew me was dead too…

http://www.luxor.com/attractions/attractions_bodies.aspx?CMP=KNC-Google-Luxor_Corp

pretty nasty, but still really cool. click image gallery to see what it looks like.

I really feel that anybody who would be upset over the use of a skull of a 13 year old girl from 150 years ago, but would not be upset over a 40 year old dairy farmer of today, really isn’t sure what they’re upset about. The fact that people allow in their emotional attachment for young girls skews the argument. Skulls ARE objects. They’re very useful objects while we’re alive, but once the consciousness has left they have no more significance than a rock. What of art made from shrapnel? What of using a femur to construct a telescope? It was in somebody’s body at one point, does that mean it’s eternally off-limits? No, because it doesn’t have the same connotations that people mistakenly place with a skull.

“”She” as a person is not being discussed; rather ‘she’ as an object is being discussed. Rather like pornography in that sense, don’t you think?”

It seems like she IS being discussed as a person, however without specific details. The fact that she’s been humanized is what brings in emotions. The camera is being discussed as an object, not her, they are not one and the same. If one bone represents the entirety of a person, then there are a lot of amputees who have lost their sense of self. The only way this is AT ALL like pornography is that some people are offended by it. But that’s more a problem of the viewer than of the art.

And I really think that you and GAL IN AL went a little far in claiming this as “corpse abuse” and a desecration. There seems to be a lot of respect shown by the artist, and I don’t think this even comes close to breaching standards of decency.

“Most ancient religions or practices, the bones of last nights dinner were honored just as much as the bones of your ancestors.”

Wow, totally untrue. Bones of hunt animals that served as dinner are commonly found in firepits. Bones of ancestors are commonly found buried in what appear to be quite like what we know as cemeteries.

Pantheism was always less prevalent than polytheism, and the line between the sacred and profane has been relatively clear and distinct throughout human history, with very few exceptions. Pantheism is a relatively modern departure, dated at perhaps as far back as the Upanishads.

It is true that early polytheism was animistic and the line between the ‘natural’ world and that of the ‘Gods’ was blurred, but again, there was a line between the venison eaten and the Deer God (as an example).

The earliest non-disputed intentional human burial grounds date back 130,000 years. There are no burial grounds for the bones of the game animals eaten.

he doesn’t just pinch bodies from the morgue. but if you do donate your body you get a refund on the door price.

also back on track i have to weigh in on the skull camera. the concept i am fine with but the decoration, eeew ..makes this looks like a cheap Halloween mask or “Disney goth”

pants

One can certainly suppose that the art in question is not the photograph produced with the skull-camera; any pinhole camera could have produced that. And in fact, the artist makes a point of constructing cameras specifically for capturing a given image that he has come up with in his imagination, as he states on his webpage.

He further tells us that this skull, unlike any generic skull, is that of a 13-year-old girl who died 150 years ago. Why is that meaningful? Why should it or does it matter? Why is it not the skull of a 40-year-old dairy farmer who died last Tuesday? Would the meaning of the photo – or the artwork – change if that were the case?

No, this specific skull was chosen for a reason, and the limited information we are given about it was chosen for a reason. The reason is that these specific facts (if facts they are) signify things to us, cultural things, and they are intended to provoke a reaction.

So we cannot say that it does not matter, that a skull is just a relic of personhood that is now devoid of meaning. It clearly has meaning – for all – or it would be of no use whatsoever in signaling. I must reject that hypothesis as error, it clearly cannot be.

It does challenge us to examine preconceived notions about ‘dignity’ after death. And even what to do with human remains from a practical sense – why have cemeteries at all, why give people urns containing ashes? Why have monuments, why even hold a funeral?

But we are also a society that holds symbols dear – and we are not alone, all societies do, even through the symbols may vary. The fact that the English language even has a word like ‘desecrate’ indicates that some symbols are not to be transgressed, by more-or-less common, mutual, consent.

It is clear, then, that the dead represent something to us – their accoutrements and ephemera signal us, and we respond powerfully. From the “Jolly Roger” to the “Skull and Bones Club,” we derive meaning from these potent symbols. We cannot wave off an objection by blithely stating “Oh, that skull doesn’t mean anything.” Clearly, it does, else it’d not have been used. Precisely what it means is open to discussion, but the fact that the skull has meaning in this work is beyond protestation. I would propose that this particular skull was chosen precisely to offend – don’t you see – in a way that a 40-year-old dairy farmer who died last Tuesday would not.

So some are offended – those who are not offended should at the very least not be surprised at those who do take offense, nor should they simply shrug off the objections of those who find such work vile and reprehensible. Clearly, the artist intended to provoke just exactly this reaction, and he has done so. If you wish to honor the artist’s intentions, consider the offended stance of some to be part and parcel of the art to be examined and show some respect to those who hold these views – they are at the very least taking an opposing viewpoint -without which, there would be no point to discussion.

While it is in the nature of art to challenge such notions, as well as to threaten taboos, I repeat that this does not engage me or intrigue me, but I suspect it makes us all a bit more jaded.

“This exhibit displays human remains of Chinese citizens or residents which were originally received by the Chinese Bureau of Police. The Chinese Bureau of Police may receive bodies from Chinese prisons. Premier cannot independently verify that the human remains you are viewing are not those of persons who were incarcerated in Chinese prisons.

This exhibit displays full body cadavers as well as human body parts, organs, fetuses and embryos that come from cadavers of Chinese citizens or residents. With respect to the human parts, organs, fetuses and embryos you are viewing, Premier relies solely on the representations of its Chinese partners and cannot independently verify that they do not belong to persons executed while incarcerated in Chinese prisons.”

“…and this camera obscura was made from the skull of a 13 year old girl-child…” you boast proudly.

“Oh? Did you kill her yourself?” asks the Boss’s wife.

“Oh no. That was Grandpapa…”

Cool, in an Ed Gein sort-of-way. But I think not.

Aren’t graveyards just glorified garbage dumps? In our western culture, aren’t memorials and their symbolic gestures more important than the actual physical remnant?

If you’re upset by this, I hope you have a mausoleum with your family members in it. For meat and mineral husks must be saved!…

…for Soylent Green Purposes.

The artist is manipulating powerful symbols in order to create a reaction, and clearly, he succeeds in this. The author of the article, Cory Doctorow, is clearly familiar with this method, comfortable as he is with the field of semiotics.

A more familiar example is flag-burning. No one can correctly claim that the USA is harmed in any material way when a person burns a US flag. However, symbols are powerful, and when they collide, emotions are manipulated in powerful ways. Thus, burning-as-protest and flag-as-symbol-of-love-for-country is an extreme juxtaposition – people’s emotions are aroused. Some are incensed, some are dismayed, some are nonplussed, some are encouraged.

A skull as a camera has simultaneous messages for the witness.

First, that the act of photography is not strictly a relationship between the viewer of the photograph and the photograph itself. How could it be, if the viewer had no knowledge of the ‘skull camera’ from which the photograph came?

Second, the irony of the skull as camera evokes thoughts of the theurgian’s mystical ‘inner eye’ or imagination – or magick. Even the design of the steel work invokes concepts familiar today, as what was once ‘Lovecraftian’ and is now ‘steampunk’ in nature. Irony, of course, is always appreciated in good artwork – the inner dialog and appreciative chuckle between the artist and those who ‘get the joke’. This one is perhaps a tad unsubtle.

Third, the in-your-face nature of a former face (another irony?) being used as a camera forces the viewer to make a decision regarding their own symbols and how they arrange them internally, and we then see the results in these comments. This is one of the most common methods of artistic expression – the insult, the sacrilege, the “There, I have done the unthinkable. Now you must confront it, must think about it.” In this sense, there is no outrage that cannot and will not be attempted. Indeed, present-day artists must struggle find symbols which are still powerful enough to be perverted in ways which offend – the triumph of this form of art is that it makes the world more blasé.

Personally, I have no use for it, and my own symbols are arranged in such a manner that I find it in poor taste, but I recognize when my symbols are being challenged, and accept that as valid for the artist.

I suppose the proper semiotically-correct response would be to confront the artist and pelt him with feces or rotten meat. This would extend the metaphor, but would he ‘get it’?

Brilliant!

When I die, I could see the possibility of donating my body for science or art. But if I don’t end up giving permission, I’d prefer not to have my parts converted into something like this, no matter how “fantastic” or “brilliant” it is, thanks anyway.

First, the skull is from England and was part a med students study kit from the turn of the century. It then sat in a box of bones with other early med school tools in an attic for a hundred years. The person that gave it to me said the only time it came down from the attic was to get stoned with it. I do feel the skull is in a better place now than where it was. She is now seen in gallery’s and books, covered in jewels, seen as beautiful and presented in a shrine I built for her.

My personal view on working with human remains came from my religious studies. I was raised Catholic and spent my Sundays in a Latin Mass. I still prefer Latin Mass because when you don’t understand Latin you rely on the visuals for communication. With no one telling me what to think, the duality of Man/God didn’t exist. I grew up without knowing of the religion created caste system of God/Man/Nature. A system adopted by many current religions to control followers and keep them in fear. My view has always been God, Nature and I were all the same. I didn’t think god was going to come down and squish me with his/her giant thumb and I wasn’t about to do that to nature because we were all one. With the caste system intact, of course the girls skull is sacred and the bones you tossed out from last nights dinner are just trash. Most ancient religions or practices, the bones of last nights dinner were honored just as much as the bones of your ancestors. Cultures around the world for thousands of years have created beautiful works of art from bones to honer their ancestors and the animals that gave them life. A good example of human bone use in Christianity is the The Sedlec Ossuary located beneath the Church of All Saints in the Czech Republic. The the Church was built in the 1400′s and the bone work the was done in 1870. I created the piece to honer a girl that died at a very young age. When I first received the skull it was filthy and decaying. With a lot of cleaning and care I was able to put it back together and create a piece that photographs what I saw in her. The beauty of life and the beauty of decay.

All the cameras I make are my bridges to subjects I wish to learn about. Growing up the priest had tools of Communion made for and from subject Jesus. I’m doing the same with the subjects I focus on. HIV camera was created after my best friend found he was HIV positive. Heart was created to study the process of birth and my relationship to my twin brother that died at birth. The artifacts that become the parts of my cameras, just seem to come to me at appropriate times in my life. These have been great tools of learning for me.

As far as it being right or wrong to use human remains, that comes from your personal history and belief system. Cultures around the world have incredibly different views on the subject of human remains. From one extreme to the other their tradition is base line normal for that culture. Like in Tibet they still have sky burials. The body is dismembered then fed to Vulchers. What is left over is then ground into a pulp and fed to the Vulchers again till there’s nothing left of the body. With the time I have spent in Southeast Asia, I’ve always had more of a Buddhist path on the subject. A friend of mine that is a Tibetan Lama living here in the US gave me some in-site when I talked to him about The Third Eye and Yama. His view was that skull had the same importance as a fallen leaf or a feather dropped from a bird. The life force was no longer part of the tool.
Well, I hope this helps. I know this process doesn’t work for everyone, but works for me.

One more thing. Someone on another Blog thought I put a camera into the skull. The skull is the camera. I fabricate the camera parts on a Bridgeport mill from billet aluminum, titanium, stainless and copper. I’m not modifying a camera or using any camera parts.

sorry about the mega long post and typos. Just thought some of you may appreciate some answers.
Thanks,
Wayne

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o’er-darken’d ways
Made for our searching: yes, in spite of all,
Some shape of beauty moves away the pall
From our dark spirits…

Namaste.

not kidding.