Human Skin Art

Remove all ads!

Aik showed me this: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/body-art-literally-1690128.html

Comments?

Personally, I think it's disgusting. Just shows you everything wrong about the crap called "modern art". Not to mention it's morally wrong - because seriously, what kind of psychopath would work with human skin?

And "a commentary on human cruelty and America's ethics and morality" ? Please.

The really scary thing is, people buy this crap. Both the ideas, and I imagine the actual objects themselves.

 

Would I go and see this exhibition? No. Would I buy something from it? No. Is it ethical...well technically yes as the skin was donated willingly. Doesn't change the fact your makeing things out of human skin though.

I would go out of my way to avoid meeting the guy who made this stuff.

 

I was sure this was going to be a thread about tattoos.

America is a free society, and one of the negatives of a free society is that you have to put up with the sickos. If the guy can make a living for himself doing this, then good luck to him. It only drives me crazy if it is government money supporting him. That means I'm paying for it and I don't like it.

 

So yeah, as art I think this is really bad and definately helps reinforce the idea that modern art is full of posturing morons who excrete nonsense and claim it means something fantastic, but I think it's a stretch to call it 'morally wrong'.

Well, that's assuming that the people whose skin was used consented to having it used in this way (which isn't actually the impression I got from the article - donating your body to modern science doesn't really strike me as also agreeing to let some guy cut your skin into the shape of America). If they didn't give explicit consent for this kind of thing then yeah - morally wrong.

I wish artists would just make good art, rather than make something shocking and then explain why it means something 'deep'.

 

I was also hoping to find a thread on tattoos, and half expected to find something on scarifcation or branding...I wasn't expecting to find a thread on using human skin - in the form of leather - being made into art.

I am usually all for body art, but this is a little odd. I prefer to see skin on a living person...not stitched together as a flag or a map.

Since the skin was donated, he has full right to do his exhibit...even though this reminds me of the Bridge District Tanner... One day he’s making flags, and the next he’s wearing it as a tunic.

 

Pfff, it takes more to art than controversial material. Looked up his work, and the material he's working on isn't the best medium to express what he might want to. (So the guy might have a "vision", but his vision is poor indeed....)

Cut-and-paste leather compositions aren't aesthetically that appealing no matter what animal the leather's from, the possible shock-value isn't even near what you get from Hagens' work.

Rubbish in rubbish out. I'm not judging the choice of material or the so-called artist on moral grounds, or that I'd be shocked. I'm judging it because it's value as art is questionable.

Nothing in the works tells the viewer what the material actually is. So the artist can produce the same effect just by using almost any material and say "Boo, I made it out of humans!"

So... *yawn* how frightening...Not.

 

I don't have anything against the art in itself but I'm somewhat concerned of how willingly the people who donated their bodies to medical research would see their bodies used in this kind of manner? I doubt they agreed to this and if I donated my body for medical research I sure as hell would not want some whacko artist using it to make a point.

 

I might, but there had better be guarantees that the artist be better at his work than this guy.

 

As the (apparantly) only person so far in this thread with any kind of background in art criticism, I feel compelled to jump in here and defend Krasnow a little bit.

True - you may find his art repugnant. You may think it's stupid, meaningless and pretentious. And I agree with Aik that there's a lot of pretentious crap out there that we're told by the artist is important. But that doesn't mean it isn't art, and that doesn't mean the artist doesn't have something important to say.

In a sense, the fact that so many of you are outraged and disgusted by his art means it is a runaway success. One of the functions of "high art" is to create a tangible emotional reaction in the viewer, either positive or negative. How many times have you walked past a painting or poster and not thought twice about it? Probably more times than you can count, and infinitely more than you can recall. These are examples of failed or functionless art. They are little more than scenery. By contrast, Krakow's work demands your attention and forces an emotional response in the viewer. Sure, it's using a shock-value gimmick to do it (and a gruesome one at that) but it's no less effective. The tactic of "taboo-as-billboard" is centuries old, and can be (though doesn't always succeed at being) a very potent delivery system for a political, moralistic or sociological concept.

I don't find this reprehensible in the least, to be honest (icky, sure - but not immoral). The skin he used came exclusively from people who donated their bodies to science, as did the dozens of bodies used in the world-famous Bodyworlds touring exhibits, and people are lining up to see those. Both are being used to educate and entertain, essentially - though one is admittedly more provocative than the other. That also happens to be the point.

 

...and the thing what I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't.

Of course this argument fails (considering the wider audience) since the world's full of overly sensitive people who're offended from the smallest of things. (So, the artist has failed to move me in a way that I'd be willing to give it any value...)

However, moral outrage and making noise isn't the best way to make something unwanted to go away. In this case, it's the outrage that gives these shoddy pieces their value in the first place!

 

Iku,

You argue that it doesn't "demand your attention and force an emotional response," yet acknowledge that the world is full of overly-sensitive people and that his work has indeed sparked moral outrage. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

 

Hmm...if people donanted their bodies for medical research then the skin shouldn't be used for artistic purposes, it should be used for things like researching skin cancer.

Also, how genuine are the reasons the artist has given? Did he originally plan to show the decline of society or was he going for a shock horrer effect and then thought he might get his work banned?

There is a lot of work that is done on leather so why should doing it on human skin be different?

 

I'm sure it is, though. There's only so much skin that researchers need, and just about any body (pardon the pun) will do. When I die, I'm only going to have 2 kidneys. I'll have gobs of skin, though, and if an artist wants what the doctors don't need...well...I won't be using it.

 

What I don't get is why people are so offended at the use of Human Skin? Why the hell should people be more shocked at the use of human skin than of the use of a different animal skin? It is just a bunch of skin cells, similar to those found in any other animal. Why does the fact it comes from the same species as yourself make it any more special?

 

And just WHY isn't PETA getting involved????

You'd think they'd tattoo his work or something.....

 

Not really. He's just saying that for the majority of people, it does as you describe - he just doesn't belong to the majority. I'm pretty much the same way - I don't really care.

 

Ah, I see. A "for me" at the end of "it doesn't" would have helped. But I see now.

 

@DR: yuh, would've could've should've, but there was that "demands your attention" bit (emphasis mine), to which I answered "well, it just doesn't do that (for me)..."


It's pretty weak to try to get attention for one's work by trying to raise a commotion.

Bill Hicks had a point that's applicable in here as well: Basic Instinct.

The film caused a lot of commotion since in it you can see a specific body part of Sharon Stone. For about a half a second. This bare glimpse of female anatomy caused a lot of controversy, and without the controversy the movie would have had far less viewers than it did. Commotion and all the moralizing brouhaha is free marketing. Without it, the movie would have been viewed as it is. And what was it again? Not anything special, not good, not even worth watching, but everyone went to see it to look for themselves what the fuss was about.

"We're the puppet people, we're the puppet people!" -Bill Hicks-

Too true. Just keep yanking our strings and we'll dance to someone else's tune.

 

In my opinion this is like saying that graverobbery is acceptable since the dead won't be needing any jewels or whatever they were buried with. If I sign a contract where I give away my body for medical research then it should be used for medical research and the rest disposed unless I have explicitly given permission to do something else with my corpse. I for one think that the will of the one who died should be taken in to consideration when considering how his/her corpse is used. Of course for all I know the people in this case might have given a permission to use their skin for art but I rather doubt it.

 

I wouldn't be so doubtful, Morgoroth. If the artist was allowed to use the material, you can pretty well rest assured that the contract the donors signed off on allowed it, even if only implicitly. Otherwise, this thread wouldn't be about an art display, but a lawsuit.