The letters forum in Sunday’s (Raleigh) News and Observer featured comments on last week’s story “An activist awakens,” about anti-“Bodies” activist Sarah Redpath.
What article critics don’t address is that the for-profit company behind the exhibit cannot provide any proof that the individuals whose bodies are on display gave their consent. As I wrote in response to one blog comment, it is not enough to say that something is “beautiful” or “educational” or “inspiring.” It must also be right, in this case done with the agreement of the people used for the display.
The example I used was inflammatory, but apt. What if you had the opportunity to buy a beautiful lamp whose shade was made of the skin of a Holocaust victim? It could be the most lovely, artistic lamp ever. But its origin makes it not only ugly, but reprehensible and a crime. I argue that the “Bodies” exhibit presents us with precisely the same issue.
What appears to be happening is that the people whose bodies are used for our entertainment were simply too poor to protest. Likely, they died far from home or in such a state of destitution that family was unable or unwilling to claim their remains. Then their remains were purchased, for the “Bodies” display.
Does their poverty make it right for us to ignore how the body was produced, while “appreciating” its beauty and intricacy? I would answer an emphatic no. How these things come to be matters desperately.