Andrew Krasnow's Gruesome Human Skin Art

1. Kalel
   May 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

   Such masterful technique and skill -- at generating attention and funding.

   I'm sure those who donate to medical science were hoping that their final gift would be used to actually help someone, and not this sort of nonesense.

   Makes my skin crawl.

2. Gauldar
   May 26th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

   @Kalel

   When I die I want you to make my ass into a handbag.

3. Flux
   May 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

   The guy only uses white people skin? Being racist to prove a point on racism is kinda counterproductive.

4. Gauldar
   May 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

   Is there really any use for skin from a cadaver? I mean, it can't last forever, and most of the research goes into the internal organs, brain and skeleton. I'm thinking that the skin is a waste product a lot of times if unable to be used immediately. Oh well, now we know what PETA representatives will start wearing.

   @Flux

   Why is choosing to use one coloured skin over another racist? He's not saying one is more inferior over the other, so how do you figure that?

5. VonSkippy
   May 26th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

   "art" the new synonym for "dumbass"

6. Orpheus
   May 26th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   The dude's a freakin' wierdo. If the maps were made out of animal skin, it'd still be wierd. Didn't we make arts and craft materials for a reason? There's got to be a better way to make a statement than this.

7. mutterhals
   May 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

   I like it. Politics be damned, that'd be some freaky art!

8. Alon
   May 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

   I can just imagine what a great conversational piece of one these would be!

   "Wow! What kind of leather is that map of America made of? Deer?"

   "Nope! Human!"

   *end of conversation*

9. glen
   May 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

   Is this suppose the make me feel embarrassed and ashamed to be white? The only point he's making is that he's a sick f**k. And a racist.

10. Mouserz
    May 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    how much for whitey skin shoes?

11. dutchboy
    May 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Whats he supposed to do? use only black peoples skin. In fact I don't think we would be reading about it here if he used only black skin.

    Now if he really wanted to play the contraversial artists card...

12. Byrd Brain
    May 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    So, if the bodies that this skin came from were donated to SCIENCE and research, how did this hack "artist" get his hands on it? This rubbish doesn't even qualify a art, let alone science.

13. kev
    May 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Calling it "art" doesnt make it intellectual or particularly creative. I find this prank to a childish attention-seeking device.

14. Kalel
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Gauldar:
    "When I die I want you to make my ass into a handbag."

    A small party clutch, or saddlebags for my horse?

15. felixthecat
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    *sneeer* This guy gets honored for this, and all poor ol' little Ed Gein got was a life sentence to the nuthouse.

    I was thinking about donating my body to the med school here, but if this is what happens, then forget it: skin to artists, bones to the pet store, organs to the soup kitchen. The med school brochure: "Your body will be treated with the respect that it deserves". Meanwhile, some effete poseur is eating stew from my bowl-skull under an umbrella made from my skin.

16. felixthecat
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    WoW! You ban comments here? Grow up! Or this a little kids site?

17. christine
    May 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    this guy is sicko

18. Frau
    May 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    @ felix - I think comments are moderated for language, but not banned.

    Yeah I dont think the people who donated their bodies thought they would end up as art.

19. MightyCow
    May 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    I hope that guy's gonna be cool when I eat his liver in the name of art.

20. Oomi
    May 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Klaatu Barada Ni*cough* *cough*

21. aikiguy
    May 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    "...a direct response to the belief that similar items made from the skin of Holocaust victims were found at Buchenwald concentration camp."

    A belief? Are you denying it happened?

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/skin.html

22. weirdloser
    May 26th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Sad, but "art" is now just a measure of who can be the sickest. I'm gonna get me a twofer and paint a portrait of the Madonna on human skin using elephant dung. It will be sublimely beautiful. Or at least expensive.

23. Timm
    May 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    It is sad what people try to pass off as art these days. A Monet is art. A Faberge' Egg is art. A representation of the shape of the US made of human skin is a disgusting piece of trash - I think it even says so in the dictionary.

    This guy is a douchebag.

24. kirbydancer
    May 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    "He uses skin to make the point that suffering is universal,"

    Doesn't the practice of only using white people's skin take the universal sense and crush it into the ground, leaving only sensationalism?

25. LisaL
    May 26th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Look at me everyone! I'm so edgey and cool and totally awesome.

    *yawn*

    So tired of these attention seeking pieces of crap calling themselves artists.

26. Sarah Perez
    May 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    I have a hard time believing this guy was able to get permission to use human skin for an "art project." I mean, it's not just some scrap on the cutting room floor-- it's human body parts, not to mention a biohazard. And how can he prove it's human skin anyway? Sounds like a good hoax to me.

    and even if it is human skin-- someone had to do it I guess. Gimmicky at best. Is that what he really wants to be known for? Lame.

27. Cola
    May 27th, 2009 at 3:10 am

    Skin from donated bodies is usually used for burn victims. It isn't scrap.

    I'm not sure the donors expected their bodies to be used this way, and that's frankly the only thing that bothers me about this.

28. ted
    May 27th, 2009 at 5:41 am

    Not much of a commentary. And yes, intentionally using white people skin is racist.

29. joseph
    May 27th, 2009 at 7:27 am

    Art... anything thats made with the intention of stimulating emotions, thoughts etc. Well thats how i see art - seems pretty successful art if the above is anything to go by.

30. Namowal
    May 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am

    I think Sarah Perez may be onto him.,,!

31. VonSkippy
    May 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    "Art… anything thats made with the intention of stimulating emotions, thoughts etc. "

    That's the dumbest statement EVER.

    By that "logic" if I slug you really really hard in the gut, I'm an artist.

    What? You didn't get that my moving fist was an analog for today's rapid paced society and that the nauseous feeling you got was the underlying thoughts of the downtrodden members of society in a capitalist run economy.

32. bennnnn
    May 27th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    "His work, he says, is a commentary on human cruelty and America’s ethics and morality."

    And what is the comment?

33. joseph
    May 28th, 2009 at 6:11 am

    VonSkippy > yeah! you got it... think it needs to be captured/recorded/performed in some way though... you wanna come to London and stage a gut punch performance art show?

34. Gauldar
    May 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am

    @VonSkippy

    With todays standards... that would actualy pass for art.

35. Ajan
    May 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    LOL LOL LOL LOL
    ///Gallery owner Robert Devcic said Krasnow uses only white skin because much of the suffering in the Americas has been caused by white people. "He uses skin to make the point that suffering is universal," he said. "It is tanned using the same process that you’d use for an animal skin."///

    Bull shit, if he uses black skin, he would be ripped apart

36. Space Otter King
    May 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Someone in New Jersey back in the olden days was skinned for committing a really bad crime and turned into a wallet. As long as he legally obtained the skin then who cares?

    If anything this is really cool.

    Is it art? Not really. But it is trippy.

37. Miss Curly
    May 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Um, excuse me. I am vomiting now.

38. Sharon
    May 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    This is disgusting and not necessary. It is bad enough that people use animal skins for similar purposes. Using human skin is just as bad. I agree with previous comments about donation of bodies to medical science. I doubt the people who made these donations has this ridiculous purpose in mind. It seems very unethical.

39. Jeremy
    May 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    I wondered what Gene Simmons was doing these days.

40. Skindeep
    June 1st, 2009 at 5:26 am

    I love the reaction this has caused. Shows how many conservatives there are in the world. I hope it has made some people think - wake up to the state of the world. Compared to what we do to animals and what happens to people in the third world this is tame. What a fuss and so many rationalisations to distract from the point of the work. Art that touches a few nerves - great! I love also how people think they are experts on what art is - such self-importance (ooh so precious) - sort of what the art speaks of here. I'd be honoured if my body was used in the name of art and for a statement that shocks

41. Skindeep
    June 1st, 2009 at 5:31 am

    Look inside an abbattoir and then you might vomit, oh sensitive one Miss Curly. Perhaps you could look into the guy that does the cloaca shit art.
    Sharon - I see no similarity in using dead people who donated their bodies, to animals who had no choice and were killed to be eaten and their skins made into leather.

42. SilverLake
    June 9th, 2009 at 1:54 am

    I think that this is really irresponsible "reporting"... These so-called "writers" are trying to disgust and shock the readers to get hits on their page, but haven't seen the work. I, in fact, have seen the show. It's dark, yes... and very moving. And I assure you that a 2 line blurb where the tags are 'nazi, serial killer, human skin, lampshade' isn't a fair representation of the work. And, just as a note as the the accuracy of these articles... there aren't any lampshades in the show. Not of skin, not of anything. There are, in fact, lamps without shades at all... six of them. One for each of the million killed in concentration camps.

    The disgusting part of this whole manufactured uproar isn't the work... it's the hack writers trying to sensationalize it.

43. Jaime Winters
    June 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Instead of rotting into dust, why not use them for art?

    Andy can have my skin if I die first.

44. Neil
    July 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 am

    Did you even bother to read your "the Nazis DID IT" link? Just as with the soap, and, arguably, the holy "gas chambers" that preserve the critical immunity of the West's Zionist ruling class to this day, NO, they did not.

45. Rob
    October 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am

    It seems that anything goes nowadays so long as it is in "the name of art". Does the exhibition of human skin lampshades and other items make Hitler an artist? How can we condemn what Hitler did to the remains of his victims but accept it when someone else does it in the name of art? When people donate their bodies it is for the purposes of medical science not for some so-called artist to make an exhibition of. Where does it all end? What about an "artist" committing murder and then displaying the body as art? Or someone's property being vandalised and the photograph of the incident displayed as art?

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT