Dr. Berkowitz’s lecture, which focused on Charles Bell’s schools of anatomy, really matched well with themes from past lectures, which all encourage the reunification of art and science as disciplines of study. The way Dr. Berkowitz described Charles Bell’s anatomical illustrations as a way to retain the dignity and humanity of the body on display was very compelling, considering how poorly these bodies were typically treated, and how duplicitously they were usually obtained.
I thought it was interesting how clinical and emotionless Gray’s Anatomy was in comparison to Bell’s work. Even though they are illustrations of the same things, made with the same purpose of instructing future students in the knowledge of anatomy, the methods differ so dramatically that I do not think I could mistake one of the artists’ work for the other’s. Dr. Berkowitz elegantly described the difference between the two in relation to pragmatism. The later textbook illustrations, in the style of Gray’s Anatomy, are made entirely for a pragmatic student. Anatomy is viewed as a field of knowledge that must be mastered before moving on to more “real” or more “important” fields in the areas of medical study. Bell’s illustrations, and the way his classes were structured, all emphasize anatomy being a discipline in and of itself.
Dr. Berkowitz suggested that the shift away from Bell’s conflation of beauty and science is reflected in how we actually see today, such as in the impersonal and cold analysis in Gray’s Anatomy. This really does fit well with the under-appreciation of the arts in modern primary and secondary schools. I might also note a trend toward practicality in the student world, as more and more focus is placed on “what looks good on a college application” and carefully designed checklists for future plans. The anatomical, and scientific in general, illustrations that I ever saw in high school textbooks felt very much like a need-to-know crash course, not at all like a drawing that time and care was put into, in the way Bell’s work evokes emotion and knowledge simultaneously.
A question from the audience started a brief discussion on the ethics of anatomists from days past. It had actually never occurred to me to wonder where the bodies used in these old diagrams and schools came from, and of course the answer is not pleasant. These were the bodies of people who were not rich enough to protect their own remains, literally harvested by grave robbers, long before it became popular for higher-classes to donate their bodies to science. Of course, there is no point debating whether the actions of these early nineteenth-century researchers are admissible or morally sound, but the effects of those actions ripple into today and make modern problems that do need to be discussed. The past is unfortunately present in these samples taken without consent, as they are the foundation of much of modern science. The choice of whether or not to use the knowledge gleaned from those questionable studies has moral and practical arguments on both sides, and it is hard to find a unanimous answer. However, I believe it is important to keep debate about such issues alive, even if just to maintain the knowledge of our modern knowledge’s origin, more than to actually choose one or the other.