Artist steals Holocaust victims' ashes and uses them to make painting

Swedish artist uses 'ashes from Holocaust victims'

WTF? So, why did this chap decide to use the ashes to make a painting?

It sounds almost necromantic; as if he thought he could use his art to reach out to the dead (or even resurrect them in his paintings).

I am a bit lost for words on this one.

Just one question: is he telling the truth?

Either way, he's probably mentally disturbed. A bit of research reveals that he thinks he can hear dead people and considers himself a monarch of both a real and virtual, borderless realm which is not of this world (which apparently gives him free license to act as he wishes). From his national website:

I mean, I get avante-garde, but this guy seems to be a bit of an egoist who's slipping.

Okay, so my question is:

Is this really a problem?

Like, say he's telling the truth. We're talking about ashes. Ashes that were once people, yes, but ashes all the same.

I'm coming at this from a materialist view - those ashes aren't magical. So then what is it that makes them more special than any other ashes? That they contain wrecked remnants of human DNA? That they're "a part of history" (because I'll need some explanation of what history has lost as a result of this purported theft)? Or are we just basing this on traditions we've established for respecting corpses that really stem from a supernaturalist understanding of death and the afterlife?

I'm partially trying to live up to the role of my username here, but I also see an incongruity with things that do actually matter, like abortion rights and stem cell research. If "humanness" grants some special status of automatic respect, then those are very difficult to justify. What matters to me is consciousness and will, and these ashes have neither. Certain acts with corpses are wrong on a basis of pure hygienics, while others can be argued as wrong on the basis that the corpse is essentially property of great sentimental value to the former person's loved ones, but this case wouldn't quite seem to meet either of those standards.

If the conversation doesn't interest you, don't feel obliged to participate (as I'm sure you won't). I just thought it'd be more interesting than lots of people saying "WTF" and "gross" and such.

Really, the worst thing I can say this guy did was steal from a museum. Shitty move, and not a precedent that can be allowed. But what he took doesn't seem to be especially valuable, when compared with, say, destroying a centuries old painting.

The artist has a unique set of beliefs which bring him into conflict with a widespread set of beliefs. To me, his work absolutely meets the standard for art. I also agree that society cannot afford to allow theft from museums, archeological or historical sites, or nature preserves for that matter. Sweden or Poland needs to mete out some proportional punishment, but the work should stand on its own merits.

Since we seem to be contributing questions here, I'll add:
Should he lose his job for it?

Well, I mean, that's fine for you and me to say, but we can't impose that on everyone else. Especially we can't impose that on people for whom those ashes do have more personal significance. Using the ashes of dead people to paint with is a little odd but, alone, not (to me) something to get upset over. Stealing the ashes of someone shows an incredible lack of empathy for that person's living relatives, which in this case can be numbered in the millions. Publicizing the use of those ashes for something like this shows an even greater lack of empathy. And stealing and using these particular ashes shows a level of Does Not Get It regarding the Holocaust that is almost inconceivable.

I'm mostly bothered by the theft aspect.
Gunther Von Hagens uses human remains for art
[and education] all the time,
but those are generally willingly donated.

Okay, so we're upset at the stealing, not the subsequent use.

Fair enough, I can get behind that.

I guess I think it's likely to get a little overblown, considering the ashes have purportedly been missing for over 20 years and no one had noticed. Had he not said anything, there'd be no anger.

I don't think the specific use is important, but I think the fact that he used them in such a public manner is important. It's not really the theft or the specific use--it's the desecration and the flagrance of that desecration.

I can't go along with the desecration argument in and of itself because some people will want to use it to prevent any artistic use of any human remains, however they are obtained. I believe that US law, or else all state laws, already strictly limit the uses of human remains. No ossuaries allowed.

On the subject of offending people whose relatives already suffered such a grievous wrong, I agree that no one should do that and anyone who would deserves all the condemnation they get. I don't agree with their belief in the sacredness being desecrated, and I don't like seeing that belief written into law.

This stupid country!

If they seriously wanted me to go to church...

If the contents in the paints were unknown would the art still have merit? Or does this painting have merit because of it's content? Using sacred material to make a sacred painting... art imitates life. The artist reminds me what is wrong with humanity. I find the idea of this painting cheap and repulsive personally.

You guys are just jealous because you can't use the Royal Privy.

In the words of a refined, French art critic...

*stares at painting* *long drag off a cigarette* *pause* *sneer*

"Merde - this is shit!"

(The "art," not what you said).