www.ditl.org

Recently heard that the 'Bodies' exhibition is stopping by Dublin for a few days, and was wondering what you guys thought of the whole thing.
I'm sort of in two minds about whether to go or not. On one hand, I'd probably find it fascinating. On the other hand, I'd probably end up not eating for a week.

For those of you who haven't heard of it, the Bodies exhibition is an exhibition of real human bodies that have been disected, preserved and put on display, highlighting various parts of the human body.
You can check out their website here.

So, what do you guys think of the whole thing?

I went to see Body Worlds (a similar exhibition) when it was in Boston. I didn't find it too disgusting, but it was pretty freaky.

Yeah, that was just in town here; unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to go.

When i get the chance, I wish to see it. However disgusting it may be, it's art. And I tend to think that art changes people. mostly in a beneficial way. I want to see art as something as common as books, or something you'd need a bit of every day, like food. food for thought.

I've heard of this. It'd obviously be shocking if it didn't come to NYC, so I'm quite certain it's been here but I haven't seen it. The idea doesn't strike me as an entirely bad one, and I'd guess the disgust factor (or possibly getting over it if you can) is part of the intent - to open your eyes and force you to accept and respect what's inside of you. I guess I mean it's intentionally shocking to get your attention.

From what i know of the exhibition, aren't the bodies treated in a way they have a sort of plastic layer? If it was really about the disgust factor, i'd guesss the artist would have let them rot away or something lie that. no, looking at it from my restricted point of view, I'd say it is about exploring the properties of not only the human body, but also of the properties of the internals of that body.

I mean just the fact that they're body parts.

This has been in Hawaii for the past several months, and quite frankly I find it horrible. These poor people (many forget that's what they were) were killed in a mudslide IIRC and now they are works of art, cut open, posed, and put on display. I refused several invitations to go, and refused to let my children attend either.

Rant is now done.

No use for it. I'm not queasy about the subject matter; it just holds no artistic value for me. The exhibits I've actually purposefully gone to see in my life include Howard Carter's "King Tut" finds when I was a kid; Van Gogh in Arles; Degas; Monet; Renoir; Manet; a collective exhibit of painters of Haarlem; Rodin; Calder; Seurat; and Licthenstein. See a display of the internal structure of a human body is, to me, a display for a physiology theater, not a museum.

I really enjoyed John Ringling's art museum in Sarasota, Florida. Hell of a collection.

I get your point, for sure, Mikey; I don't really consider it art either. I'd still like to see it.

there ar eplenty of artists which see the human body as a work of art. Amongst them were also several renaissance artists, as god created mankind in his image. Thus, we could be the template for perfection. Most artists so far used the shell, the body as seen from the outside to produce art, this is just a change of style, using the internal of the human body to research it.
Leonardo used dead bodies as well for anatomical studies and has them integrated into his works of art.
Salvador Dalí considered himself a living work of art.
Yves Klein signed models declaring them to be works of art from then on.
There is a photographer which photographed the human body from the inside, showing the development of a foetus, the structures of internal organs, and probably has pictured the workings of the cell as well by now.
Although the fact that dead people are used for this exhibition is a bit creepy to people, i just see the art an sich as a next step in exploring the human body.

How the artist got the bodies is largely unknown, and has spawned some controvery due to some bodies having a hole at the base of their skull (those bodies are removed now), but if those bodies had political value because they used to be protesters, i don't think their families would have ever gotten to see them again. In this way, people may find out in time the true origin of these bodies, which may in turn shed light upon some rather inhumane governments. I do not say that these bodies are victims of malovelent regimes, but if they are, truth can come to light, as the very results of their regime are on display for the public.

As for the mudslide, the remains may be unidentifiable, or the family may have consented to use their bodies for this exhibition.

Thus we cross another point: Where do the bodies come from? It is a question asked as confrontingly as possible, which is answered partially by the known information, but sets you to think.

I'd pass. I don't see the human body as art, merely as what I am. besides, I don't deal well with guts. Blood is okay. Not insides/

What, no mention yet of living people with skin on but nothing else in this discussion of "the body as art?"

Actually, aside from the factor, many do consider nude art to be a legitimate form of expression.