If human made markings (art) are a marriage of science and history. Can’t we study them all in relationship to ourselves? Why is science usually viewed as documentation and not artistic? What is the difference between the humanities and the sciences? Why are art and the humanities not commonly considered scientific? Why are the materials used to create a work of art not considered to be historical? Some of the images we have seen in class help to bring more transparency to these questions by eliminating any doubt that the lines between these disciplines are blurrier than they seem.
Below is an image of Wilhelm Rontgen wife’s hand. Lisa Cartwright mentioned in class this image shows us the image was more than just the first x ray image but that it is also takes a deeper look into the
“personal, cultural, sexual, and spiritual way the body could be viewed and therefore broadly changed the way that life and death were understood.”
It also brings up a lot of curious questions about the female body and its role or place in science, historically. The female body is often voiceless and objectified in the arts but here we can see how it was used in and for science in a similar way. We can historically understand the value of a woman’s body, at this point in time, through this image. So is this art? Is this history? Or is this science?
I kept asking myself that and started to dig around with the idea of the female body in relationship to science and the arts. I found Viktoria Modesta, the worlds first bionic pop artist. Here is contemporary example of a woman’s body in science and in arts.
On her website Viktoria is described as an artist that:
“challenges our preconceptions of what a pop artist could be. She treats her amputeeism as empowering, as a part of her artistic expression which can thrill and influence- not an accident of nature which demands sympathy. She defines being categorized and makes us re-think meaning of the word ‘disabled’.
This video is amazing to watch but has anything really changed? Is her body being displayed and objectified as a sexual object? Yes. Is that empowering? Yes. Why? Because amputees are not supposed to be sexual beings?
How is this different from the 1921 ManRay image titled coat stand?
Should this women have felt empowered too? Did she? What does it say about how we value women if female value is only attached to the ability to attract a sexual partner and How does this limit its use and or power in the arts and in science?