In this past week’s lecture by Dr. Carin Berkowitz, she spoke on two disciplines that commonly do not come into conversation with one and other: art and anatomy. While many might be familiar with some type of anatomical illustration at the very least, there often seems to be a disconnect when looking to understand the importance of the relationship for people on either side of the equation. Given the nature of this lecture series, I have been unfamiliar with many of the topics going into the lectures, however this one hit much closer to home. As an art history major, not only am I more familiar with the visual arts, but I have specific experience from being in a class called Medicine in Visual Culture, in which we studied in depth the works of Charles Bell (whom Berkowitz centralizes her lecture around).
The idea of the visual arts in conversation with medicine has been one that developed in anything but linear form. Once looked upon as disgusting, the beauty that artists such as Charles Bell brought to the table helped to legitimize this intertwining of art and medical culture. Despite the ability of Bell to make this connection stronger, Berkowitz noted that there is still a disconnect present when considering the meddling of these two fields. She argued that simplicity must be avoided in the representation of these forms, as this only serves as a barrier to true understanding of the body.
While we think about the works of Bell as fully representative of the intricacies of the human body, it is important to identify these barriers to realism that Berkowitz touched on and have also been identified by art historians. Due to the general lack of understanding surrounding the human body and its processes at the time of Bell’s works, they were mostly done in an exploratory fashion, focused on the interconnectedness of the body’s inner workings. This led to what some found to be grotesque images of the body, however it was an important step not only in understanding human anatomy but also in the medical field as a whole.
Although much of the lecture hit on elements of art historical anatomical drawings that I was familiar with due to my enrollment in Medicine in Visual Culture, I found it interesting to consider how the theme of the course fit into these works. Thinking specifically about the conversation about sourcing of bodies for these purposes (as has been mentioned by other students in the class), I found direct ties to some of the greater themes we have seen in this lecture series. While glorifying the affect these works had on the medical field, it is easy to forget that their arrival on the coroners table came often not by their own choice. This exploitation of the body continues to bring an ugly moral and ethical conversation into the picture when considering how these works should best be shown and viewed. This led to an interesting and thought-provoking end to the lecture, in which Berkowitz questioned how society should best deal with this issue of exploitation. While there is no easy answer, we can remain hopeful that there is a way in which these works can still be respected so long as there is greater consideration of the negative pretenses under which they were produced.