What do ya think?
Inventing the `real’ body
Personally wouldn’t go to see dead people whose body parts have been ‘artfully’ rearranged.
Edit: definitely a fruitcake but a very rich fruitcake - he invented the plastination process and patented it. His exhibitions hordes of people wherever he goes which must earn him a pretty penny. So he’s a rich fruitcake and a smart cookie to boot.
I vote, fruitcake".
that’s not a fruitcake. eccentric maybe. but not a fruitcake. he’s like p t barum of barnum and baily circus. a major figure of our times. definitely not a fruitcake. fruitcakes are a dime a dozen. he is one of a kind german eccentric (I didn’t know Germany produces eccentrics but there is one now…)
kind of likw blueface666 asked in question: not an artist per se, but as he said in interview himself, an artist/entrepreneur/inventor. he will go down in history.
I read about his stuff before, and I think it’s fascinating and beautiful too.
I agree. He may be a little eccentric but I’d vote “educator.” I would think his exhibits must be very interesting and educational and could inspire a number of people to pursue careers in medicine.
If they’re supposed to be educational why put people in silly poses like a man running with his muscles streaming off behind him as if they are trailing in the wind? That’s not designed to be educational. I don’t what it’s supposed to be!
Artistic value? Educational value? Social commentary value? Nothing so complex. It all boils down to cashing in on people’s simple fascination with seeing dead bodies.
Roll up! Roll up! See the Amazing Plastinated Dead People!
[quote]Artistic value? Educational value? Social commentary value? Nothing so complex. It all boils down to cashing in on people’s simple fascination with seeing dead bodies.
Roll up! Roll up! See the Amazing Plastinated Dead People!
[/quote]
Bingo! Still cool though, and I do like his hat.
Has anyone gone yet?
Ack! Nothing new. Damien Hirst was up to the same shenanigans back in the early 90s. Think “Sensation”.
Of course it’s ‘ART’. It’s intentional. No question about it.
[quote=“Alien”]
Of course it’s ‘ART’. It’s intentional. No question about it.[/quote]
Alien,
Would you please define the word “Art.?” Is something art simply because, as you stated above, “it’s intentional?” Does that mean that someone who breaks a window can stand back and look at the shards of glass and call it art? In other words, does the viewer or the artist determine what is art?
Personally, I think that one of the “problems” with so-called “art” is that it is impossible to define what art is. Thus, almost anything can be called art, which, means that “art” is whatever the viewer decides it is. The problem with this is that since no two people may be able to decide what art is, then, theoretically, everything is art, yet, paradoxically, nothing is art.
So, we are left with the ultimate realization that “art,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, it is impossible for you to state unequivocally, as you did, that something is art simply because it is intentional.
When students dissect worms, frogs, fetal pigs and other creatures in biology classes, they remove various parts and take them out to examine them more closely. . . for educational purposes. Isn’t it possible his streaming muscle man serves the same purpose? I haven’t seen it, but perhaps only by unraveling the back muscles would people be amazed to discover how many different back muscles there are, or how long they are, or how many different locations they attach to, and maybe that wouldn’t be evident if they were all huddled in their proper locations. I don’t know, but I do want to see the show, and it probably would feel strange viewing what were once a bunch of living, breating people, but I expect it would be fascinating.
[quote=“cableguy”] Alien,
Would you please define the word “Art.?” [/quote]
Holy crap! Alien - if you can define art then you are a genius! Big call cableguy.
MT, the purpose of the exhibition is clearly not education, although that is not to say you won’t learn something about human anatomy.
It makes me think what a wasted opportunity. You could take those same bodies, and display them in such a way as to teach people about the incredible biological machine that is the human body.
In the case of the running man, it would be better to have all the muscles attached properly so you can see how they work.
I would go to see an educational exhibition of bodies at a science museum, but the current exhibition is being presented as art.
Take this exhibit for example.
Wouldn’t it be great to have some information provided at the side of the exhibit so we could learn some interesting facts about what we are looking at?
Besides, as Gunther himself says, it’s not art, it’s entertainment. But he’s made many conflicting statements about his exhibitions. Apparently he does not want to educate, but wants to provide the possibility of education. 
[quote=“cableguy”][quote=“Alien”]
Of course it’s ‘ART’. It’s intentional. No question about it.[/quote]
Alien,
Would you please define the word “Art.?” Is something art simply because, as you stated above, “it’s intentional?” Does that mean that someone who breaks a window can stand back and look at the shards of glass and call it art? In other words, does the viewer or the artist determine what is art?
Personally, I think that one of the “problems” with so-called “art” is that it is impossible to define what art is. Thus, almost anything can be called art, which, means that “art” is whatever the viewer decides it is. The problem with this is that since no two people may be able to decide what art is, then, theoretically, everything is art, yet, paradoxically, nothing is art.
So, we are left with the ultimate realization that “art,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, it is impossible for you to state unequivocally, as you did, that something is art simply because it is intentional.[/quote]
Of course it’s hard to define art, but I’ve come to my own definition. Intention = Art. If you break your window and admire it as such, that’s what it is. To you.
We don’t have to believe art is beautiful in order for it to be art.
On the other hand, I would say those that mix beauty and provoke thought are my favourite works of art. I found St Peters cathedral and dome and the Sistine chapel the most stunning and provocative things I’ve ever seen. Michaelangelo truly inspires me. Renaissance art. Whatever.
But I also love expressionism. Modigliani and Munch. Many would say that their work is creepy. Again, I find it inspiring.
Art is personal.
Maybe the best way then to define art is as work created to receive effect, whether in the public’s eye or the artist’s. We can say art is designed to please and delight or has a symbolic meaning, but there are so many exceptions to this rule. If you decided as a child to finger-paint on the wall of your bedroom, what you did was not art. But if as an adult you create the same work and call it art, then it is. If anyone appreciates your art is yet another matter.
Then there’s transgenic art.
Eduordo Kac is famous for it:
[quote]
One of Kac’s most controversial works, using transgenic technology, is a glow-in-the-dark bunny named Alba. In the 1990s, scientists discovered a protein called GFP (green fluorescent protein) in jellyfish that enables these organisms to communicate and navigate at the bottom of the ocean. The protein has since become one of the most important tools in molecular biology because, when introduced into foreign cells, it does not affect its host organism, either morphologically or behaviorally. Kac injected the reproductive cell of a bunny with this GFP protein. When exposed to blue light with a maximum excitation of 488 nm, Alba casts a fluorescent green glow, with a maximum emission of 509 nm.
Kac
Even Gunther does not call his work art:
He also calls his work ‘edutainment’ and apparently you can buy teachign materials at the exhibition.
This, from a guardian article, is interesting:
So basically it’s art that’s not quite art, science that’s not really science.
When it is all said and done, you are still looking at some dead guys playing chess. 
Does it really matter how one classifies it? Apparently it’s art, education and entertainment, to varying degrees, for different people (also disgusting and sacriligous to others, but they don’t have to go to the show). It’s got to be more of each of those than your average, instantly forgettable Hollywood movie. If one pays the price of admission and is satisfied with the show then it’s a good thing, right? Sure, it’s also a clever way of earning a buck for the creator (no not that creator, the other one), but so what? Entertainers all hope to earn a few bucks, but that doesn’t necessarily make the entertainment less entertaining.
Why is it entertaining? Would you still go if you found out the bodies were in fact plastic replicas? I doubt it.
People go to the exhibition in droves because they want to gawp at real dead bodies. If you find that entertaining then good for you.
The hordes who show up at the exhibition are paying to see a freak show. Now THAT’s entertainment.