Controversy Over Body Worlds Exhibit, cont’d
One of the practical matters that must be discussed when considering the effect of Body Worlds and exhibits like it is: Is it useful? Does it do its job to reach the public? Is it uniquely the best way to teach its lessons?
If the true purpose of the show was only to educate, there would be whole or supplementary use of other teaching materials (which are cheaper, more/similar quality detailed, and more informative) such as MRI’s, wax models, computer graphics technology, and other interactive methods. The Body Worlds exhibit relies solely on the display of the human body. The best way to learn something more completely is through multiple methods, the premise of most museum exhibits. And the Body Worlds franchise certainly has enough financial power to order supplemental material ($200 Million from over 25 Million visitors).
Further, one must question whether it is necessary to even use live models; they are not being used to train medical professionals who need the real thing. Plastination helps to eliminate ‘dead body’ odors and encourages people to be able to detach themselves from a body (rather than the body of another person). Medical professionals use plastinated models rather thna cadavers to help with these factors in anatomy classes also. However, the use of cadavers in medical tutorials is essential as it fosters the real-life setting of the medical professional.
Why does the public need the real thing? Wax models are often just as good in detailing the intricacies of the body and much less expensive to create (It may take upwards of £60,000 to plastinate one human body). Sure, wax does not elicit as much excitement as tissue (there is no more ‘flesh’, as plastination removes all the fluid and replaces it with polymers through a vacuum process) — but all the same, wax could appear just as lifelike. In understanding that this focus of the exhibit has a special power over our minds that other manners of teaching might not, it would be a fallacy to state that this is the most efficient and effective way to learn about the body.
This is not to say that Body Worlds is not legitimately attempting to educate the public. This part of the utilization of Body Worlds to benefit the public extends beyond controversy. Dr von Hagen has in fact done a very wonderful job of engaging the public in a subject matter that, in the past, has been ignored or seen as unglamorous. The conflict lies in the way to now separate the science from the sensational, which was necessary to attract such attention in the first place. Body Worlds as it is now could stand for much improvement to instruct the people by diversifying the vehicles through which it reaches the viewer.
I think that again learning and seeing the human body in all of its glory and mystery could be awesome. Seeing its layers. The more knowledge we can equip ourselves with about our own bodies the better.
All of the rest of the controversy with this exhibition… well that is another topic I fear.
I loved the Body Worlds exhibit and was (almost) surprised by the negative attention it got in some circles. Of course, once you’ve dissected a human body in the lab, Body Worlds seems remarkably tame!
I think people are squeamish about it because we are, as a society, far too removed from death itself. As “crazy” as the exhibit was, it was only a bunch of human bodies. The bodies were donated to science by their original owners. I don’t see the big deal.
I would agree that the primary purpose was not education, but rather to engender a sense of wonder in the audience. And that is a noble pursuit.