From: Suzanne Anker
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:29:21 -0500
Michael Sappol has stated that medical iconography has a "cumulative effect" on perception. He talks about the ways in which seeing certain images make them more naturalized. What does "naturalization" mean in relation to picturing the embryo and the fetus? Brad Smith's embryonic visions, dig deep into the recesses of evolutionary development as he exposes origins of body patterns cum totemic markers. At the same time Catherine Walby, Carl Djerrasi, Robin Marantz Henig, Squier and yours truly have also invoked the image of the embryo/fetus in our work. I have stated elsewhere, that the fetus is a primal marvel. It's representation continues to harbor political dimensions within the United States. Why have we not become "naturalized" to its presence?
to post a response, click on the "comment" button below
to return to the main page, go to www.visualcultureandbioscience.org