Pretty Creepy

Gunther Von Hagens, Andrew Krasnow, Francois Robert, Antony Noel Kelly and Wieki Somers. What do all these names have in common?

They're all artists of a sort, but that's not their only commonality. They also specialise in the human form and have done some strange, and sometimes down right creepy pieces. From flesh to bones, these folks have done it. Some only use the camera to capture mankind's most intricate intimacies, while other use actual body parts to show things you'd normally not see.

Andrew Krasnow

Andrew Krasnow,  did a series which depicted the American history. The works were all done in skin, yes human skin. And Krasnow explains what the works represent for him, "The work presents skin history, or, to be more precise, histories in skin. In part it examines American exceptionalism and its religious origins, in part it is a critique of hate; its tribal, racial, and ethnic antecedents, and more broadly it delves into unfamiliar areas, areas where each individual viewer is left to assess the human condition, its priorities, and its collective psyche."

Francois Robert

Francois Robert is a rather renowned photographer who has taken many a great photo, in his distinguished career. But the one series that gets him onto the creepy list, is his "Stop the Violence" gallery. A series of approximately 20, fine art pieces. Each picture meticulously arranged bones in various silhouettes. Very well done and definitely thought provoking.




Anthony Noel Kelly is by far the most notorious of the artists. He was found guilty of body theft in the late 90s. He had convinced a lab technician to supply him with his materials. He used the "stolen" bodies to make moulds and these would be painted and hung up, display as anatomical specimens. However the courts didn't really see his point of view and he was then sentenced to prison time.

Wieki Somers

Wieki Somers was far more subtle about the creepy. This Dutch designer did a series of "sculptures' made entirely of human ashes. The ashes are all donated, she then uses an industrial 3D printer to make the old ashes come to life. So to speak.



My personal favourite however, and possibly the creepiest is Gunther Von Hagens. This controversial Polish-born anatomist created a truly unique way of preserving parts of dead people. The method, called plastination, is a process by which certain plastics (such as silicone, epoxy or polyester ) are integrated into the body to replace all the water and fat. Thus you get specimens that are odourless, don't decay and sometimes, even the properties of the original sample are preserved.

Gunther von Hagens

Gunther von Hagens

His plastination works are fascinating, no matter who you are. You may be extremely repulsed to begin with, but you can't help put stare in wonder as the mystery that is human insides are displayed to sate our curiosity as to what we really look like on the inside.

Gunther von Hagens

Check out another bloggers view on these creepy artists and more

http://weburbanist.com/2010/08/23/body-art-creations-made-of-human-flesh-blood-bones/

 Also check out more of Gunther von Hagens' work

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1377367/Body-Worlds-Animals-anatomical-safari-says-Gunter-von-Hagens.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Unbalanced

Scanning through my e-mails the other day, I came across a  News24 Breaking News Alert.
The Headline read "Pay disparities persist - Zuma" and that was followed by "Census 2011 results show the black majority remains worst affected by poverty, unemployment, and inequality, says President Jacob Zuma."

Now the actual article went on to tell about how census show that everyone in the country was earning more than the average black South African. I don't know about you, but when they did the recent census no one actually came to me to enquire about my life history, genetic background or annual income. I just got home one day and there was a sticker on my gate saying I'd been counted. And I've heard many similar stories. So I'm not even entirely sure how accurate the census was.

That being beside the point, what did catch my eye was the part where our dear president apparently said "black majority remains worst affected by poverty, unemployment, and inequality".
Now this lead my mind back to the Woolworths issue not too long ago, where they were accused of employing too many black South Africans. And then my mind started to wander through all the so called inequality in the country. Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first one to shout the odds when things are unfair and inequality starts to run rampant (point in case my blog "System Error"). However I'd like to point out to the some 50 million South Africans out there, of course the black majority is going to seemingly get the short end of every 'unfortunate stick' out there. That's just the nature of being the majority. 

Example; unemployment. There are going to be more unemployed blacks purely because there are more blacks. Same goes for employment, there will be more employed blacks at any given time because the simple truth is, there are more blacks. Same goes for poverty, the ratio of impoverished blacks to impoverished anyone else will always lean to the blacks being in the "more" column. And the reason for that.....

MID-YEAR POPULATION ESTIMATES 2011
Population group	Number	% of total
African	40 206 275	79.5%
White	4 565 825	9.0%
Coloured	4 539 790	9.0%
Indian/Asian	1 274 867	2.5%
TOTAL	50 586 757	100%

There are, more than double the amount of "Africans" than there are white, coloured and Indian/Asian combined. This (in my opinion) is self explanatory.

I'm Just Sayin'

P.S
The table of information was obtained from here...
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/population.htm#.UEmzKZYhx8E#ixzz25lvYKHja

System Error

A system so vastly flawed and useless that it doesn't even work for the people it's meant to be helping. BEE is a lot like communism, great on paper but not very practical out in the real world. It was a great way to get those less fortunate, or those previously disadvantaged the opportunities they deserved, but as with most ideas of its kind, human greed and ignorance turned it into the shamble was see today.

Jobs have become a scarce commodity in today's climate and with things like BEE, the 'quota system' and so called 'employment equity' it's not getting any easier. The few jobs there are, are becoming nonexistent for some and, for others it's, quite frankly, a joke.

Many white South Africans complain about the unfairness of the job situation, and it's true with the white South African male becoming somewhat of an endangered species due to unfair disadvantages and still being punished for the crimes of the past, life is difficult for the white populous. Especially where jobs are concerned.

However what we fail to take note of, as white people, is the fact that not all blacks just want to be shoved into positions of power purely because of their skin colour. Many of them find it insulting to be pushed behind a desk with no real responsibilities or challenges, just because the company needs a token black person (no matter what the salary).

So the problem is BEE and all its faces . What sort of message does the government send when some jobs are awarded solely on the colour of your skin. Qualified whites  are being overlooked and qualified blacks are essentially not allowed to spread their wings and better themselves. How does a system like that actually make any logical sense?

The essence of, and theory behind things like BEE, are very noble and at the core they they seem like legitimate answers to some problems. But honestly, almost 20 years after the election of the ANC into power, and some people still see themselves as previously disadvantaged? Why not give everyone an equal opportunity?

I'm Just Sayin'

Finally Something Newsworthy

I'm not a big fan of the news lately, but I was recently introduced to the 21st century with a tablet, and on my tablet there is an application that scrolls through various news headlines from various publications. So now, every time I look at my tablet I see these headlines and every now and then my curiosity gets the better of me and I read an article or two.
 
Rather bored the other day, my eye was caught by the entertainment section, which I proceeded to skim through. Now anyone who knows me, knows I despise the entertainment section. When the idea of newsworthy is; Madonna disapproving of her daughters shaved head, or Kirsten Stewart being banned for Robert Pattinson's premier, or the fact that there are no commonalities among South African adulterers, I get disheartened. This is not the sort of thing I find relevant or even entertaining.

And then, while I was scanning, something found me that temporarily restored my faith in the journalistic community of the world. It was an article centred around the upcoming animated movie brave.

The article was from BBC news Scotland by reporter Steve McKenzie and was entitled "Search for the real Merida of Disney Pixar's film Brave". The article touches on the possibility of real life Scottish heroines who may have been the blueprint for the sassy little las Merida and the article explores the possibility that not all Scottish ladies were demure, rule-following wives.
From riveting speeches to raising armies, and even helping Bonnie Prince Charlie to evade capture, some women are just not happy being the 'good wife'.


The article is full of fun facts and a grammatical correctness that only the UK seems to be able to attain as of late.

For the full article click the link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-18674980

Mind Your Blogging Business

SINCE the late 1990s people have been putting their lives, opinions and and insights on the world wide web. This phenomenon is called "web log" or "blog". Blogging has, since its conception, branched out into various different fields. Now one can blog, vlog (video blog), photoblog, art blog, podcast (audio blog), mix-and-match, or throw it all together as one cacophony of visual, auditory and written bites.

Blogging is an excellent way to vent. To get up there on your soapbox (without actually owning a soapbox) and make your opinion known to all who care to read, and some who don't. You can rant about your job, bitch about your neighbour's dog, and even air other people's dirty laundry, even though its not yours to air.

As such I thought it appropriate that my first blog post, be about blogging. More importantly, the danger of blogging. In and of itself, blogging is fairly harmless. Putting your thoughts and opinions in an online journal is not a dangerous thing per se and in fact it can be very good for the soul (if you don't mind the whole world reading it). It's just harmless creativity, right? So how can it have any dangers?

Well, the problem doesn't lie in the concept, but in the content. The dangers of blogging lie in the fact that everybody, and their mother, thinks they can write. Which is not entirely false, anyone can tell a story, which is essentially all writing is. It's recounting a scenario, or expressing feelings, experience and so forth. Where most people fall short is, knowing which stories to tell and which ones aren't yours to tell.

Luckily for the gen-pop there are very few rules regulating the Internet, so you could probably get away with calling your boss an arsehole in your blog, legally speaking (although if they read it you'll most likely get fired). However, there are certain things that, although not illegal, are ethically or morally wrong. These are the things most people cannot differentiate between. Everybody is prone to bad-mouthing at some stage and doing this in private, among friends and family is one thing. Putting it on the web for all to see is a different thing entirely and could lead to more problems than it's worth.

Although it may seem like harmless fun, what you say could be damaging to others. This is why they teach journalists certain techniques of saying what you want, but in a way that prevents legal action (because once it's in an official publication, it can have legal ramifications). You'll notice in certain instances they wont use a persons name, or they use "alleged" and other leading words. The kinds of words where the reader knows what is implied but the publication cannot get into trouble for. An extensive vocabulary and subtle insinuations can keep you out of a lot of trouble while blogging too.

The other thing that could cause a problem is what you blog about. Example, just because you know the CEO of a certain company is a trans-sexual, drag queen, who's having an affair with his secretary; doesn't mean you should blog about it. Tabloid journalism has become vastly too popular and some desperate journalist could pick up on this and then its over. Which might be acceptable to some people, but it's neither ethical nor is it 'cool'.

At the end of the day it comes down to this, "If you can't say anything nice, rather don't say anything at all." Or if you must, say it in such a way that doesn't destroy a person's life and possibly get you run out of town by a lynch mob.

I'm just sayin'