Hi Matt,
yes I'd forgotten about the other cameras.
Re: the skulls.
I'm a bit surprised that I have such a strong reaction to them too. I mean they aren't any use to their previous owners now and they'd otherwise be pulverised or buried in the cold earth or be in formaldehyde in a med. school or something. They are just atoms in the form of a skull and all those other pragmatic things that I generally feel about my own body. The thing is I would never impose the way I think about my body on others.
The problem for me is that he seems to be exploiting body parts as a way to generate interest in his work, which I'm sure it does. The declared spiritual aspect of his work is partly what bothers me about the use of the skull for Yama. I can only imagine that the person it once belonged to had no spiritual attachment to stereography or 300psi air cylinders, and had they known about the eventual use of their body part as a camera would they have agreed? No one has any way of knowing whether this use, a use that principally serves the artist not Tibetans, would have been acceptable to the person whose skull this is. I shouldn't say the artist is spiritually bereft because he may well be my better in that respect, I simply believe that his use of these skulls as spiritual talismans is misguided and arrogant and principally designed to increase the awareness and appeal of his work.
The infant heart fits in the same category for me as the skulls; the HIV positive blood is just a health risk and I don't know if I'd be happy sharing a bus with that camera; what happens in a crash? The use of blood as a red filter is actually pretty cool but what's wrong with blood without pathogens? Not edgy enough for this artist. What next, will he make a camera out of depleted uranium and take pictures of veterans with Gulf War Syndrome?
I know someone who illegally dug up his own mother's ashes and took them home where they sit on the mantlepiece to this day. I don't have a problem with this although the law does. He did it because he had a genuine connection with this person (not an imagined or commercially convenient connection) and wanted to keep their remains out of the rain and cold. He doesn't use the remains for their ghoulish attraction in promoting his business. I think you can only do that when you have no real connection to the person to whom they once belonged.
I might be being a little harsh but these pieces have made me feel very angry about the exploitation of body parts for commercial ends, dressing it up as a spiritual endeavour seems duplicit and merely convenient. Reading his AS all I see are references to the artist's connection with the camera, as if the artrist is the centre of all things. No mention at all about the origin of the skulls or any relationship they may have had to photography (of course they probably had none). Art gone mad but good grist for the mill.