Ann Althouse discusses a BodyWorlds-type exhibit — to include a crucifixion. She points out that, if it’s offensive to depict crucifixion this way, it really can’t be just because it’s graphic. We have a long tradition of pious, graphic crucifixion art. There must be some other reason. (And, as I point out in the comments, the word "blasphemy" is inaccurate.)
I’ve had mixed feelings about the BodyWorlds exhibit ever since I saw it in the Science Museum of Minnesota. Some of the bodies and body systems and body parts were displayed in the tradition of anatomical models: fascinating, informative, respectful. Others are displayed as "art" and while those were also fascinating and informative, I was repelled by my own fascination. I left the exhibit uncertain about whether this use of the human body was improperly respectful of it.
Enter the thought experiment: what if, instead of being depicted riding a horse or pulling back a bowstring, the plastically preserved human body was depicted as Christ on the cross? Yeah, that would offend me. It’s more a gut reaction than an intellectual analysis, I admit, but unlike my uncertain reaction to the horseman or the archer, my reaction to the hypothetical depiction of the Crucified One is definitely repulsion and sorrow. Obviously any depiction of the Crucifixion ought to inspire repulsion and sorrow — but at the suffering of Christ, not at the art itself. This is why graphic depiction is not the problem.
I conclude that von Hagens’s art is inherently disrespectful (not to accuse von Hagens himself of a sin of disrespect, not knowing his state of mind; he may not intend it or be aware of it). If it were legitimate depiction of any human being, it would not be an inappropriate depiction of Christ. But the fact that it seems improper to use it to depict Christ, means that it should seem improper to depict any human being (an image of God) that way.
bearing blog 