Death Salon: Mütter Museum

Oct11

The French came up with a wonderful expression, l’esprit de l’escalier. It’s that sense of frustration when the right witty answer to someone’s question or criticism pops up in your mind when you have already left, and you’re heading down the stairs (escalier).
This summer a friend asked me the question I should have always been waiting for, and that ironically nobody – not even those who know me well – ever asked me: “Why are you so interested in death?“

I remember saying something vague about my fascination with funeral rites, about the relevance of death in art, about every culture being actually defined by its relationship with the afterlife… Yet in my mind I was surprised by the triviality and impersonality of my answers. Maybe the question was a bit naive, like asking an old sailor what he finds so beautiful about ocean waves. But then again her curiosity was totally legitimate: why taking interest in death in a time when it is normally denied and removed? And how could I, after all these years of studying and writing, addressing far more complex issues, have not anticipated and prepared for such a direct question?

Maybe it was in an effort to make up for the esprit de l’escalier which had caught me that day, that I decided to meet up with like-minded people, who happen to cultivate my same interests, to try and understand their motivations.
Now, there is only one place in the world where I could find, all together, the main academics, intellectuals and artists who have made death their main focus. So, I flew up to Philadelphia.

The Death Salon, for those who haven’t heard of it, is an event organized by the death-positive movement revolving around Caitlin Doughty, whom I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing not long ago. It consists of two days of meetings, conferences, music and games, all of which explore death – in its multiple artistic, cultural, social and philosophical facets.
This year Death Salon took place in an exceptional location, inside Philadelphia’s Mütter Museum, one of the best-known pathological anatomy museums in the world.

Besides the pleasure of finally meeting in person several “penfriends” and scholars I admire, I was interested in experiencing first-hand this new reality, to feel its vibes: I wanted to understand what kind of people could, in such a joyful and subversive way, define themselves as death aficionados, while trying to take this topic away from taboo through a more relaxed and open dialogue on everything death-related.

The variety of different Death Salon attendees impressed me from the start, and just like I expected every one of them had their own, very personal reasons to be there: there were writers researching ideas for their next novel, nurses who wanted to understand how they could better relate to the terminally ill, nice old ladies who worked as tour guides in nearby city museums, medical students, morticians, photographers and artists whose work for some reason included death, persons who were struggling to cope with a recent loss and who were hoping to find a more intimate comprehension for their suffering in that multicolored crowd.
The shared feeling was one of strange, subtle excitement: on a superficial level, it could almost seem like a gathering for “death nerds”, all enthusiastically chatting about grave robbers and adipocere in front of their coffee, just like others zealously discuss sports or politics. But that little sparkle in every participant’s eyes actually betrayed a more profound relief, one of being at last free to talk openly about their own fears, protected within a family which does not judge certain obsessions, feeling certain that even their most secret insecurity could be brought to light here.
We are all wounded, in the face of death, and it’s an ancient, ever open wound. The most memorable aspect of Death Salon is that the shame attached to such wound seemed to fade away, at least for the space of two days, and every pain or worry was channeled in a cathartic debate.

And in this context the various conferences, in their heterogeneity, little by little made it clear for me that there was not just one plain answer to the question that brought me there in the first place (“why are you so interested in death?”). Here is a summary of the works presented at Death Salon, and of the many concepts they suggested.

Death is damn interesting
Marianne Hamel is a forensic pathologist, and her report illuminated the differences between her real every-day job and its fictionalized version in movies and TV shows. To clarify the matter, she started off by declaring that she never performed an autopsy in the middle of the night under a single light bulb, nor she ever showed up at a crime scene wearing high heels; among the other debunked myths, “I can only guess the exact time of a victim’s death if they’ve been shot through their watch“. Some implications of her job, if they lack a Hollywood appeal, are actually incredibily important: to quote just one example, forensic pathologists have a clear idea of the state of public health before any other professional. They’re the first to know if a new drug is becoming trendy, or if certain dangerous behaviours are spreading through the population.
At Death Salon other peculiar topics were addressed, such as the difficulties in museum restoration of ancient Egyptian mummies (M. Gleeson), the correct way of “exploding” skulls to prepare them in the tradition of French anatomist Edmé François Chauvot de Beauchêne (R. M. Cohn), and the peptide mass fingerprinting method to assess whether a book is really bound in human skin (A. Dhody, D. Kirby, R. Hark, M. Rosenbloom). There were talks on illustrious dead and their ghosts (C. Dickey) and on Hart Island, a huge, tax-payed mass grave in the heart of New York City (B. Lovejoy).

Death can be fun
A hilarious talk by Elizabeth Harper, author of the delightful blog All The Saints You Should Know, focused on those Saints whose bodies miraculously escaped decomposition, and on the intricate (and far from intuitive) beaurocratic procedures the Roman Catholic Church has established to recognize an “incorrupt” relic from a slightly less prodigious one. It is interesting how certain things we Italians take for granted, as we’ve seen them in every church since we were children, come out as pretty crazy in the eyes of many Americans…
Can we turn a cemetery into a place for the living? At Laurel Hill cemetery, in Philadelphia, recreational activities, film screenings, charity marathons and night shows take place, as reported by Alexis Jeffcoat and Emma Stern.
If all this wasn’t enough to understand that death and entertainment are not enemies, on the last evening the Death Salon organized at the bar National Mechanics, in a jovial pub atmosphere, a Death Quizzo – namely a game show where teams battled over their knowledge of the most curious details regarding death and corpses.

Death is a painful poem
Sarah Troop, executive director of The Order of The Good Death and museum curator, bravely shared with the public what is probably the most traumatic experience of all: the loss of a young child. The difficulty Sarah experienced in elaborating her grief pushed her to seek a more adequate mindset in her Mexican roots. Here, small dead children become angelitos, little angels which the relatives dress up in embroidered clothes and who, being pure souls, can act as a medium between Earth and Heaven. The consolation for a mother who lost her child is in finding, inside a tradition, a specific role, wich modern secularized society fails to supply. And if pain can never go away, it is somehow shared across a culture which admits its existence, and instills it with a deeper meaning.

Death tells us some incredible stories
Evi Numen illustrated the post-mortem scandal of John Frankford, who was victim of one of many truculent incidents that were still happening some thirty years after the Pennsylvania Anatomy Act (1867), due to the chronical lack of cadavers to dissect in medical schools.
And, speaking of gruesome stories, no tradition beats murder ballads, imported from Europe as a sort of chanted crime news. At the Death Salon, after a historical introduction by Lavinia Jones Wright, a trio of great musicians went on to interpret some of the most relevant murder ballads.

Death is a dialogue
Dr. Paul Koudounaris, Death Salon’s real rockstar, explained the difference between cultures who set up a soft border in relation to their dead, as opposed to other cultures which build a hard boundary: in the majority of cultures, including our own until recent times, taking care of the corpses, even years after their death, is a way to maintain ancestors active within the social tissue. What Norman Bates did to his mother in Psycho, in Tana Toraja would be regarded as an example of filial devotion (I talked about it in this article).

Robert Hicks, director of Mütter Museum, explored the implications of displaying human remains in museums today, wondering about the evolution of post mortem imagery and about the politics and ownership of the dead.
David Orr, artist and photographer, offered a review of symmetry in the arts, particularly in regard to the skull, a symbol that refers to our own identity.

Death must be faced and domesticated
Finally, various facets of dying were exposed, often complex and contradictory.
Death defines who we are, affirmed Christine Colby as she told the story of Jennifer Gable, a transgender who during her whole life fought to assert her identity, only to be buried by her family as a man. Death changes along with society, unveiling new layers of complexity.
Dr. Erin Lockard, despite being a doctor herself, while assisting her dying mother had to face other doctors who, maybe as a defense strategy, denied the obvious, delaying the old woman’s agony with endless new therapies.
In closing, here is someone who decided to teach death at the university. Norma Bowe‘s “Death in perspective” class has a three-years waiting list, and offers a series of practical activities: the students take field trips to hospices, hospitals and funeral homes, attend an autopsy, create spaces for meditation and build their own approach to death without philosophical or religious filters, through first-hand experience.

My opinion on Death Salon? Two intense and fruitful days, gone in a flash. Openly talking about death is essential, now more than ever, but – and I think this is the point of the whole Salon – it is also unbelievable, mind-bending fun: all that has been said, both by panelists and the audience, all these unexpected viewpoints, clearly prove that death is, even now, a territory dominated by wonder.

Still overloaded with stimuli, I pondered my unresolved question during the night flight back home. Why am I so fascinated with death?
Looking out the window towards the approaching coast of old Europe, with its little flickering lights, it became clear that the only possible answer, as I suspected from the beginning, was the most elementary one.
“Because being interested in death means to be interested in life“.

L’automa misterioso

Feb12

Una mattina di novembre del 1928, un camion si fermò di fronte al prestigioso museo scientifico della città di Philadelphia, il Franklin Institute; la cassa che i fattorini fecero scendere dall’autocarro conteneva un complesso rompicapo.
La facoltosa famiglia Brock, infatti, aveva deciso di donare alla collezione del museo una serie di parti meccaniche che originariamente componevano una macchina in ottone. Si trattava di un vecchio automa ereditato dal loro antenato John Penn Brock o, meglio, di quello che ne rimaneva: il burattino meccanico era sopravvissuto a un incendio, riportando però gravi danni.

Il lavoro di restauro si preannunciava laborioso e complicato, anche perché non c’era nessuno schema o progetto originale su cui basarsi per comprendere come assemblare i pezzi; mentre Charles Roberts, talentuoso tecnico del Franklin Institute, si metteva pazientemente all’opera, in parallelo si cominciò a investigare la storia dell’automa. A quanto si sapeva, il burattino era stato costruito da Johann Maelzel, inventore tedesco vissuto a cavallo fra ‘700 e ‘800. Quest’uomo, seppur sprovvisto di una formale educazione, possedeva una geniale mente ingegneristica: certo, spesso prendeva “ispirazione” da idee altrui in maniera un po’ troppo disinvolta, ma sapeva perfezionarle talmente bene da sorpassare sempre l’originale. Realizzò strumenti musicali che imitavano il suono di intere bande militari, cronometri, metronomi, burattini automatici, e tutta una serie di stupefacenti meccanismi. La sua amicizia turbolenta con Ludwig van Beethoven gli aprì le porte del successo, e per molti anni Maelzel girò il mondo, esibendo i suoi automi (fra cui anche una ricostruzione del famigerato “Turco” di cui abbiamo parlato in questo articolo) dall’Europa alla Russia, dalle Americhe alle Indie.
John Penn Brock, a quanto dicevano gli eredi, aveva acquistato questo meccanismo da Maelzel in persona, durante un viaggio in Francia. In effetti quando arrivò al Franklin Institute il burattino indossava un’uniforme, ormai a brandelli, che lo faceva assomigliare vagamente a un soldato francese.

Durante il restauro, i tecnici del museo cominciarono pian piano a comprendere quale incredibile tesoro avessero ricevuto in dono. Rispetto agli altri automi, notarono infatti una grossa differenza: se normalmente gli ingranaggi contenenti la memoria di movimento si trovavano all’interno del corpo del manichino stesso, in questo caso essi erano talmente voluminosi che era stato necessario nasconderli nella base dell’automa. Era la più grande memoria meccanica di questo tipo mai vista, perlomeno in un pezzo d’epoca. Questo significava che la macchina doveva essere in grado di compiere delle azioni di una complessità senza precedenti.

La memoria dell’automa era contenuta in grandi dischi in ottone (camme), dentellati in maniera irregolare. Il motore li faceva girare, e tre lunghe dita d’acciaio ne seguivano i contorni, “traducendo” la forma dei bordi nelle tre dimensioni spaziali e veicolando, tramite un intricato sistema di leve e ingranaggi, il movimento alla mano del burattino.

Quando i lavori furono ultimati, l’automa aveva ripreso quasi del tutto la sua forma originaria. Gli mancavano ancora le gambe, distrutte nell’incendio, e probabilmente alcuni ingranaggi che avrebbero permesso un movimento più fluido e “umano” della sua testa. Anche la penna che aveva in mano era andata perduta, e venne sostituita da una stilografica. Ma l’essenziale era stato ricostruito.

Non appena fu data carica ai motori, l’automa tornò in vita dopo decenni di inattività. Abbassò la testa, appoggiò delicatamente la punta della penna sul foglio. Quello che stava per succedere andava oltre ogni aspettativa.

Il burattino cominciò a delineare alcuni fra i più elaborati disegni mai riprodotti da un automa. Dopo aver creato quattro diverse illustrazioni, venne il momento delle poesie: l’automa scriveva i suoi versi con un’arzigogolata e leziosa calligrafia, dimostrando di non aver perso per nulla la “mano”. Ma la sorpresa più grande doveva ancora venire.

Dopo aver scritto il terzo e ultimo poema, l’automa sembrò fermarsi per un attimo, quasi fosse indeciso se svelare o meno il suo segreto; infine aggiunse, sul bordo, una frase. Ecrit par l’Automate de Maillardet, “scritto dall’Automa di Maillardet”.
L’inventore della macchina non era quindi Maelzel!

Dalla profondità degli ingranaggi dell’automa stesso era emersa la sua vera storia, e l’identità del suo creatore.
Henri Maillardet (1745-1830) era un orologiaio svizzero che aveva lavorato a Londra, prima di morire in Belgio. Egli aveva costruito diversi automi, fra cui uno in grado di scrivere in cinese che fu regalato da Re Giorgio III all’Imperatore della Cina. Ma il suo lavoro più ambizioso e straordinario aveva rischiato di rimanere attribuito all’inventore sbagliato, se Maillardet non avesse deciso di lasciare nella memoria di quel burattino meccanico la traccia del suo nome.

The_Automaton_Exhibition_1826_at_Gothic_Hall_in_Haymarket_London

L’automa di Maillardet, sulla destra, a Londra nel 1826.

L’automa di Maillardet, costruito probabilmente nella prima decade del XIX secolo, aveva viaggiato da Londra in tutta l’Europa, spingendosi fino a San Pietroburgo. Dal 1821 al 1833 era stato in possesso di un certo signor Schmidt, che l’aveva esibito nuovamente a Londra. Nel 1835 l’automa faceva effettivamente parte della collezione di Maelzel, che lo portò con sé nel suo tour degli Stati Uniti nel 1835 e lo mise in mostra insieme alle sue creazioni a Boston, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. e New York. Dopodiché l’automa scomparve, anche se alcuni ritengono possibile che P. T. Barnum, che conosceva Maelzel, l’avesse acquistato per esporlo in uno dei suoi due musei (situati a Philadelphia e New York). L’ipotesi è plausibile anche perché sappiamo che l’automa aveva subìto i danni di un incendio, e in effetti entrambi i musei di Barnum finirono distrutti dal fuoco.

Gli ingranaggi di Maillardet sono considerati precursori storici, in epoca pre-elettronica, della cosiddetta memoria ROM (Read-Only-Memory), cioè di un sistema per immagazzinare dati recuperabili in seguito. L’automa ha inoltre ispirato il pupazzo meccanico che compare in Hugo Cabret (2011) di Martin Scorsese e nel romanzo di Brian Selznick da cui è stato tratto il film.