Secrets of the City

No bones about it, this is a weird story!

If you donate your body to science I’m not sure you consider yourself “objectified” or the act undignified. This seems kind of presumptuous on the artist’s part to decide that for someone who thought such a donation was a more worthwhile choice than a traditional burial.

How did the artist get the skeleton? I thought they cremated the bodies when they were done with the medical research.

And I agree with Bones. I would assume anyone who donates their body to science believes that once you are dead what happens to your body is inconsequesial. And what if the person HATED art but loved science? They would be pissed? And isn’t being used as an art project sort of undignified also?

Ouch. Painful couple of typos there.

Probably there is no skeleton. It’s a publicity stunt. Nobody is really inane enough to think that sensationally interring human remains near a giant spoon is “dignified” and not “objectifying.”

On the other hand, no one has seen Martin’s landlord in three weeks….

There is absolutely a skeleton. I’ve seen it, both befure burial and during the burial. It’s also not really a secret, since the GPS coordinates are on display in the Gallery.

My understanding is those who donate their bodies to science DONATE, as in give, give freely. Their choice. So while I applaud any artist who gets a paid gig, I disagree the body/soul of the donator needs/wants a special burial.

I know it’s a done deal, but I would have suggested an uinidentified dead person (like a homeless person who died sad and alone from alchohol poisoning).

All that said, a friend recently died and donated her body to science. (She has a weird form of cancer and was glad to give los medicos a whack at learning more about it.) She had no burial, so I think I might visit this Walker grave if I feel a need to visit my friend’s grave.

Those who are curious about what happens to your body after you donate, should read “Stiff.” Truly eye opening and what happens to these bodies is not undignified as far as the scientific community is concerned, or for that matter, the lay community. Just ask anyone who has survived a car crash because of a seat belt or the family of a murder victim who’s killer was brought to justice with the help of forensic science. Even the human skeleton, which looks like objectification has been instrumental in the advancement of modern medicine, whereas before medicine was truly a gruesome and far more undignified experience on the part of the unfortunate patient. It seems awfully self-indulgent for someone to assume that the person who donated their body to science would feel objectified by aiding medical students and ultimately being a part of history (I’m pretty sure actual human articulated skeletons are no longer used).

Also, what’s so dignified about being buried in an unmarked plot of land outside a museum?

I plan on donating my corpse to “Body Worlds,” but only if they pose me with a cigarette.

I love irony.

I just had an article in Mpls-St. Paul mag (in April) that raised questions about attitudes toward death in art. Unfortunately it’s not available online as far as I know.

I’ve donated my body to Scarlett Johansson. She hasn’t taken me up on the offer yet. YET!

If see does, you might end up smoking too, DouglasG.

I stand corrected. There is someone inane enough to glibly dismiss scientific research as “undignified,” while arrogantly presuming their own artsy fartsy internment of a corpse is “dignified.” I guess, having been at the Walker, I should never have made such an assumption.

In Stuff, the author talks about the medical students who use donated cadavers having a ceremony when they dispose of them, to encourage a sense of respect for the people who donated their bodies to science. I know people who donate their bodies want them to be useful; I’m not convinced they want them to be disregarded after their usefulness is finished.

I’ll donate my body to body worlds if they pose me as a museum patron pondering another laminated corpse. Imagine people shuffling in next to me, looking at the exhibit, then turning and making some kind of offhand comment — “gross, huh?” and then realizing… uh oh.

I’m just stuck on the whole “undignified” and “objectified” phrasing of the artist. Human skeletons are an interesting part of medical history since they have been all but phased out. Would it not be dignified to be displayed in a museum for people to look at and ponder, ala Bodyworlds?

Seems to me that most anyone who attempts to use a corpse, body parts or bodily fluids in their art usually ends up looking like an idiot.

Except for Hunter S. Thompson.

and Keith Richard’s dad.

I’ll donate my body to body worlds if they make me look skinny and give me a harem of blonde corpses.

I am a little skeptical since the GPS coordinates are in the middle of the exit lane of the parking ramp.