Third Eye pinhole camera exposes the dead, mocks the living
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Sep 24th 2008 5:57AM
posted Sep 24th 2008 5:57AM
Here you have latest pinhole camera by artist, Wayne Martin Belger -- a good boy raised on a steady diet of crucifixion imagery and the scorched-earth wrath of divinity. This work entitled Third Eye, a study of "the beauty of decay," uses precious metals like titanium and silver to expose the memory of time onto film, sheering the 150 year old skull of a 13 year old girl. Sample image posted after the break for those who dare.
[Via Make: and Art Diabolique]
[Via Make: and Art Diabolique]
Seriously, using a real human skull for that is just disgusting and tasteless if you ask me.
I know what you mean, many people these days have no respect for the dead and hardly any for the living either.
Isn't there some kind of law against this? Like anything?
You two are so fucken boring.
Oh noes, a oh-so-cool teeny with a pentagram avatar called me fucking boring.
I wouldn't care if someone used my skull like this... you know why?
Because i'll be dead.
There are shops that SELL human bones
eg
http://www.boneroom.com/
So, I assume there's very few restrictions on this.
It's likely that the head was found in a mass grave, not stolen from someone's own tombstone.
@L You are more of a dullard than boring. On the other hand, your unique moniker is very boring.
Guys, who really cares if it's a real skull? It's not like they chopped it off her living head to use.
You are quite genuinely boring. *snore*
Talk about a victimless crime.
dude, shes dead. its just a damn piece of bone. its worthless. get over it. damn guys.
This is what will happen to us when John Conner and the resistance fail.
Really L? How would you know that "allislost" is a teenager? How do you know he's not older than you? Grow up. I have a pentagram as my avatar (granted, it is album art), but does that mean anything? People like you are the scum of Engadget, judging people by their name or some other crap like that.
@Taylor: There are also shops that sell fake bones. Anyone who's taken an anatomy class knows that. The fake ones are easier to find, and much, much cheaper. Somebody's trying to "ask questions," and like the stereotypical art student he is, hasn't thought much about what the answer might be. I like the Cure as much as the next guy, but I'm obviously uncomfortable with this. People have made art from human bones for centuries, but it's usually done with reverence and taste, and not for empty shock value. Here is a famous example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedlec_Ossuary
She might be dead and have no idea what's happened to her remains, but this cheapens all of us. If you're so into death, treat it with some respect.
@M You know I think I'd rather my skull be used as a camera than made a part of some aristocrat's coat of arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ossuaire_2.JPG
But I guess using the bones of anonymous poor people to big up your family has more "reverence and taste".
Wow... just wow...
not the art... all you douchebags.
I'm donating my remains to an art school... if I'm not cryogenicly frozen or turned into a robot.
I agree that using someone's skull for your own 'rebel' attention whoring is tasteless. But then again I guess it's working, horray for the 'artist'.
It is somewhat heartening that the only real defender of this is Allislost with the cliche pentagram. I hope all that mascara and emo music is a phase...
Oh, and Zeus.:God = fail.
I have no idea what's going on...
Think French Fries... In Amsterdam. Where they put mayonnaise on the french fries. Mayonnaise!
DON'T PUT ANY DAMN MAYONNAISE ON *MY* FRENCH FRIES!
That's just plain un-American.
Ketchup. That's what I'm talking about!
I put mayonnaise on my fries... Actually, I use more of a home made dip that I call mayonnaise, that's made from an egg yoke (no white), and red wine vinegar, dijon mustard, and vegetable oil.
Mmm... Mayonnaise.
This is why I think about having myself cremated once the time comes. Then my friends can spread me into the sea or blast me off into space or whatever, snort me up. Or do to my remains whatever else I gave my consent for. At least my skull will not be abused 150 years later by some artist who likes to drill holes in things.
In short: It feels a tiny little bit wrong.
A little bit wrong may be an understatement! Browsing through his site, here are some of the other cameras he has made:
- A camera with vials of HIV infected blood that passes through the camera and acts as a red filter.
- A camera with a baby heart preserved in formaldehyde
- A camera with a piece of the World Trade Centre on it
- A camera with deer antlers attached
This is some very provocative art, that's for sure!
You'd think that, until you understand what a cremation involves. Sure, your skull won't be abused 150 years later. Rather, it'll be promptly pummeled and ground down by some random person\machine until it's in small enough pieces to actually be cremated and turned into dust, just like the rest of your large bones. No offense to those that choose cremation, but it just isn't as beautiful of a process as we'd all like to think.
Personally, I'd take this over something like that. Even if I did not consent, at least I'd be doing something worthwhile post-mortem (well, along with organ donation, of course).
Actually I love the notion of being reused once dead. It's not like I'll mind anyway when that time comes: I'll be too busy being dead!
or drink your ashes thinking that it's chocolate milk mix and your spirit lives on inside them...
I have no problem with scientists using skeletons to find out about the past, investigate diseases and other things to improve knowledge.
But THIS is just for someones "art" and profit, if he was to use a fake skull and weather it then fine but this is just desecration (and I'm just an agnostic)
If one wants to bring up those in museums, that mainly falls under knowledge, and people can donate themselves.
Mummies, kind of the same, but also preservation considering the amount of grave robbers and the little care they showed for the deceased
If he was to use a relative, maybe, but a 13y old girls skull? I doubt he tracked down the relatives and asked for their permisson
I agree with everything you're saying except the part about using a relative's skull. As it is, this "art" is very morbid, but if he had used the skull of a dead relative---at least, if it was someone he'd known---that would just be utterly disturbing.
What a load of bollocks:
"Belger wants the images to be “processed” through the dead girls “enlightened” view instead of his own personal photographic vision. This creates a unique relationship between artist and medium. Unlike other photographers, or artists for that matter, where the final image is all the matters, for Belger the process and the tools are just as important. In fact, artist, artwork and process are completely integrated. In some ways he is modern day shaman who uses sacred relics to conjure visions and cast spells."
I hate this pretentious arty-farty claptrap. None of what is actually communicated relates directly to the quality of the work, and is just empty handwaving designed to distract from the fact that he uses an overly complex process to create a mediocre work. The more empty bull this kind of stuff is cushioned in, the less talented the artist. Oh, and the picture is a 'shop.
You're forgetting what art is really about.
It's doesn't matter if his work is good or bad, what matters is that it creates an emotion in the people who see it and that's what it did in you... or else you wouldn't have said anything.
While what you say is definitely true, allislost, you'll eventually find the only statement a pentagram makes is fashion.
Rotate it 180 degrees and you'll have made a statement. You see far fewer pentacles than you do pentagrams and the meaning has much more depth. And you'll get the attention from the uninformed mistaking it for a pentagram. It's nice when people wear their misconceptions on their sleeves.
The upside-down PENTACLE is a statement in itself. I put the passion of my work above all else, even my health.
I'm glad you have trouble seeing because i didn't think i would ever explain the reason behind that image.
Since Fire(Passion) and Earth(Prosperity) are in the bottom of a normal pentacle, putting them on top puts those two above all else in my life.
But...
Now I changed that to the image of Baphomet that could mean "Baptism of Wisdom", "The Father of Understanding" and my favorite, "absorption of knowledge" which coincides nicely with that fact that I'm studying like crazy.
Oooh, Fire and Earth!
I'd rather my skull got turned into something beautiful and useful than got buried or burnt, spread on a bunch of roses and pissed on by a dog.
That's pretty much your choice and just fine if you like it. Thing is, as long as the girl in question (still assuming it's not all hoaxy) gave her permission to donate her remains to the arts, this project would be fine too. Ok, it would still be pushy (LOOK WHAT I DID! SCARY, HUH?!) and tacky (see the emeralds? Oh please...) yet it would not be the shameful act of desecration it represents without said consent of the donor.
How does one acquire the skull of a 13-year old girl? I'm sure places sell bones for research purposes but I would imagine they wouldn't sell to someone making a camera. There's pushing limits for the sake of art, but then their is just downright disrespectful acts that violate basic human mores. The remains of the dead are not toys.
That's a cool looking picture.
If I die, I am totally cool with someone doing that with my head....
just, you know, for the record. Incase it comes up.
Don't you mean, WHEN you die, not IF?
OMG that is so cool i hope in 150+ years my skull gets chopped up and used in some sweet artistic manner. Probly wont be as im male and 25 and counting so meh.
What do you expect from an idiot like this: http://www.boyofblue.com/about/altar.jpg
K.
That is one seriously disturbed mind. By the way, thanks a lot for making me look at that!
Link possibly/probably nsfw or anything
Is that Janet Jackson's Superbowl nipple decoration on its forehead?
Reading through these comments, I was getting upset. 13 year old girl's skull... turned into someone's art... then, I got to this comment. lol
I think that's seriously badass looking, but from a moral standpoint acquiring the skull of a 1800s thirteen year old girl simply to "mod" is a little questionable. I don't think I'd mind though if my skull was used for something like this (provided I'm not still using it), though I'd like my name in the credits.....and 50%..to my family.
Dark Art FTW!
Yeah... this thing is badass.
i can't believe people are so against this... it's not like he's skull fucking it!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/39845
this might be weird, but i mean he uses it to develop the flim. its not just like dumb looking art. its really cool (well for like 20 min) but it was a good idea none the less.
I want that in my house, but using a version crafted from the skulls of bankers from the first decade of the 21st century.
Am I the only one who had to go to the MAKE article to figure out WTF was actually even going on? Does "uses precious metals like titanium and silver to expose the memory of time onto the film sheering the 150 year old skull of a 13 year old girl" actually make sense to anyone?
I totally agree with Martijn that this is pretentious artsy BS.
Yeah, that statement didn't make any sense to me either.
Wow...Thanks for that disturbing image this early in the morning. That guy's site has some seriously disturbing stuff...Nothing like when religion screws someone up for life...Try forming RELATIONSHIPS instead!
What, art that's provocative? zOMG!
This is legal, why?
Surprisingly, yes.
So are vampirism and cannibalism.
Wonder if he can make me a DVD Player...
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/15/terminator-head-dvd-player-returns-from-the-future-to-stop-itsel/
I can has?
Guys, I dont usually post so fast togethor, but this guy is disgusting.
http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras/heart.html#anchor
I can not believe this is for real.
And there is no doubt in my mind he could make me a DVD Player now...
How can anything human disgust you? Wouldn't that mean that you're disgusted by your own self?
It's amazing to me how so many people who believe themselves enlightened and sophisticated are proving to be surprisingly narrow-minded and conservative, not realizing it was "radical" artists like this who in the past pushed the limits of orthodoxy to ultimately create the world we take for granted today.
I'm not saying I don't find some of Belger's work strange or disturbing. But condemning art just because it doesn't fit into one's notion of what art "should be" is what kept us in the Dark Ages for centuries.
"Radical artists" of the past often broke the law of the day in order to push the limits. If this guy was to have sex with an 8 year old boy in order to explore "the ever increasing exploitation and idolization of the young", would you be singing the same tune?
If you read the comments then you will see that a lot of the problem isn't with the art in itself (disturbing as it is), it is the fact that this artist likely has not gained permission from the owner or family of the skull, and is exploiting the skull of a child in a thinly veiled attempt to get notoriety/noticed. A convincingly made fake skull would have served the same purpose.
I could not have said it better myself.
Well my worst problems with this is the fact that he has used the skull of a person who has not agreed to this. And even worse, how the hell did he get it?
And it is the "enlightened and sophisticated" that are needed the most. Who better to spark the flame of creativity than those who harbor the flame of negativity.
Poita: using the remains of long-deceased humans doesn't remotely compare to your example of pedophilia/sexual abuse for a number of reasons, and your bringing it up seems a bit like "thinly veiled attempt to get notoriety"--as you put it.
You're objecting to the use of a real skull because it had an "owner" who may or may not have previously consented, who may or may not presently object to how it's being used (depending on your particular beliefs). But the fact alone that a fake skull would not provoke your reaction, proves that it in fact would *not* serve the same purpose.
The point of art is not its appearance--otherwise a well-reproduced Van Gogh painting would "serve the same purpose" as the real thing. Suppose we had a Star-Trekkish type replication device for producing flawless reproductions--of Van Goghs or human skulls. Would the reproductions be the same? Physically, yes. But what makes something "art" are the intangible qualities that we attribute to it.
You can tell when something is good art when it invokes emotions. It is disturbing and the fact that it makes me feel something speaks for it.
Metal.
The entire thing is contrived...
The morbid nature of the piece is supposed to be its interest, but it feels very much like the artist tries way too hard...
the artist's intention of the 'art' isn't the physical object that he produced, but viewer's response to it... the purpose of the piece is to make people uncomfortable...
All of that being said, I don't think he's that great of an artist... its way too easy to shift people out of their comfort zone...
He really should make a pinhole camera that uses 100 aborted fetuses as the filter... i mean... he might as well take the concept all the way... that one would be sure to offend quite a few more people.
You make some good points, but I think "offend" and "provoke" (or offensive vs. provocative) are not the same.
I don't find Belger's art offensive, but nevertheless it does provoke many thoughts and feelings, some of them negative. And I think that's okay--in fact, that's very much the point, because it's reflecting upon my own reaction that tells me a bit more about myself.
People reject art on the basis that it's "offensive" are taking the easy way out. Regarding a work and considering its merits and giving thought to your own feelings about it, requires a lot more effort.
You and I are on the same page.
I don't find his work offensive either, but I do believe it was the artist's intention to both offend and provoke. If the artist was afraid of offending, then he wouldn't have picked this as his subject material, or aids infected blood, or infant hearts...
But, I think that sometimes a person can miss the point when they rely too much on this provoked response.
It does not take a great deal of artistic vision to construct macabre art pieces. It does take talent to wedge pinhole cameras into all of the things that he has and props to him for that.
The thing that bothers me about his work is that he obviously has quite a bit of talent in camera making, yet he relies on the morbid to garner attention.
I enjoyed a lot of his photography, some of it captured an idea... but it feels cheapened because I feel like the artist is afraid that nobody would look at the picture if the camera wasn't a skull with a $5000 ruby set in its forehead...
Let the dead bury the dead.
all that is concerned about this is dead.
the person that was in this shell has moved on (discarded as you will this temporary thing)
if it can last 150 years then wouldn't everyone's, Where are all the bones from everyone that has died in at least the last 150 years?
Some people are like slinky's you just want to push them down the stairs. :þ
What?
meh, this is pointless. but i'm sure it had the desired effect "oh my god, how could they do this with a human skull" "oh my god its soooooo cool that they did this with a human skull"..
That's possible, but we can't directly read the artist's mind, so we'll never know.
I'd claim this is *not* pointless, because it's more about your perception and your reaction. In some cases art is not about the artist, it's about you.
Soooo......this guy takes pictures? And........those pictures are his "art"? Then.......what does this skull have to do with anything? How would you aim the thing? Does he run around in public and watch peoples' reactions? It just doesn't make sense. Now, if the pictures produced were unique in some way (i.e. never seen their like before) then that would be a different story.
Both the article and the comments (especially the comments) are unbearably yawn-inducing.
There's no need to separate the two.
The reply above me was aimed at DoomGaZez comment
Please stop posting. You're not as edgy or "dark" as you think you are.
Thanks in advance.
Clive Barker called, he wants his camera back.
wow, so many knees jerking away furiously...
This is just what I need to start my career in deviant necromancy! If I'm able to raise people from the grave, I definitely want their skulls to look like that.
Meh. It's kind of pedestrian and gimmicky. This is art for people who have nothing intelligent to say, so they just go for shock value instead. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from a 16-year-old who thinks he's edgy and unique, but who really has no idea how much of this sort of thing happened in the world before he came along.
All in all, this is no different from any other bad mod: Take the guts of some high-tech thing and shove them inside some low-tech thing that looks "cool" in order to get a few oohs and aahs from the crowd.
The only difference here is that this guy chose a skull instead of a Darth Vader mask or Solid Snake figurine. Either way, it's a "jam this into that" mod, with little creativity and lots of flash based on the modded item's original looks, and NOT on the artist's talent or vision.
"Evoking emotion" doesn't mean something is good art. If that's the case, then when the KKK burned a cross in a Black family's yard, that was "art", and I wouldn't call it that. There's good art, and then there's pointless shock value. This is the latter. It does nothing new, achieves nothing new, and doesn't have any sort of theme or concept other than "Hey, I'll stick a camera in a dead girl's skull."
"Third eye" is barely a theme. It's more like an afterthought of "sticking the camera lens in her eye would be too obvious."
This belongs in a roadside freak show, not in a gallery.
Would've saved a lot of time if I knew the best comment was the last comment. Good post.
I still don't know why I'm defending this piece but i feel that comparing something obviously racist to the skull-cam is wrong.
One is meant to cause fear and is created by hatred, the other is meant to shock and bewilder the viewer and is created by a morbid outlook on life.
Don't belittle this by comparing it to some act of ignorance and hatred. Even when people call it bad art, pointless art, sick, disgusting, and disturbing art, we can't help but call it art.
as Howmanoid said... You either dig it or you don't.
@allislost
"You either dig it or you don't."
And you're seriously creeping me out with how much you dig it. You seem to be defending it every other comment, and the only thing you seem to be able to spout out is "You just don't get it".
I get it.
He shoved a camera into a dead little girl's skull. He creates disturbing devices and assigns them a shallow purpose like "Designed to study the beauty of decay."
That is not art. That is desecration.
@CubeGuy
You are by far the dumbest person here.
You don't have to get it you moron, just don't claim it's not art when in fact the camera and the photograph is an art piece.
Anything created by humans with work and thought put into it is art, even when it's as practical as a faucet or as impractical as this camera.
People. It's art. It's meant to be controversial. There is no right or wrong. You either dig it or you don't
I think it would be awesome if my skull were used for some form of art in 150 years after I passed, unfortunately I will never pass.
Did anyone stop to think if maybe the 13-year-old girl WANTED to have her skull turned into a camera? HMMM!
So when I'm dead, I will see toast?
Is the modded skull supposed to be the art, or the shopped pictures that come out of it? As far as "the beauty of decay" is concerned, I have always found old bones oddly mystifying. Especially ritual burials when the body/mummy has fantasticaly preserved jewlelry or artwork found with it. The photograph shown here could be interpreted as a sight from the skull's "consciuosness" or third eye. The modern shapes and design of the precious metals are poignant enough to get people talking, and the inclusion of the camera to give the skull "new sight" is intriguing. I think the piece looses something from trying to incorporate these two aspects. Might have been better off making two separate pieces: this one (but no photo); and another skull with two video cameras in the eye sockets that watches the people looking at it and displays what it sees on a nearby screen. *shudder* Seeing how you look through a dead persons "eyes"....
At any rate, it's a damn good thing art is subjective and we can all walk away with our own interpretations of it.
It's a moot point. If her spirit is concious, you would think that after 150 years she would have: lost interest in her coporeal body, or crave to have some recognition (even in a small way) be brought back to her, or be satisfied that she will not be forgotten. If her spirit is not concious or doesn't exist, then there really isn't anything to worry about.
"He used the 150 year old skull of a 13 year old girl that was part of a doctor’s anatomical kit. It was found, abandoned and forgotten, in an attic. In creating an altar to this lost child, Belger feels he is honoring her and her memory."
http://www.doubleexposure.com/Belger.shtml
sorry, my previous post was supposed to be a reply to Matthew.
At any rate, I have to admit that at first when I saw "pinhole camera," I thought it was in reference to a digital camera. I stand corrected. The skull itself is a camera. It is a shadowbox camera and that defeats the purpose of my video camera suggestion (still a creepy idea though.)
THis is creepy...but with the value of life so low in todays standards...i guess no one cares, but this guy is weird, not saying hes a freak...but weird...its desterbing and morbid, but no one seems to care...
Wow, interesting conversation.
Hi, I'm the guy that created the work your talking about.
First, the skull is from England and was part a med students study kit from the turn of the century. It then sat in a box of bones with other early med school tools in an attic for a hundred years. The person that gave it to me said the only time it came down from the attic was to get stoned with it. I do feel the skull is in a better place now than where it was. She is now seen in gallery's and books, covered in jewels, seen as beautiful and presented in a shrine I built for her.
My personal view on working with human remains came from my religious studies. I was raised Catholic and spent my Sundays in a Latin Mass. I still prefer Latin Mass because when you don't understand Latin you rely on the visuals for communication. With no one telling me what to think, the duality of Man/God didn't exist. I grew up without knowing of the religion created caste system of God/Man/Nature. A system adopted by many current religions to control followers and keep them in fear. My view has always been God, Nature and I were all the same. I didn't think god was going to come down and squish me with his/her giant thumb and I wasn't about to do that to nature because we were all one. With the caste system intact, of course the girls skull is sacred and the bones you tossed out from last nights dinner are just trash. Most ancient religions or practices, the bones of last nights dinner were honored just as much as the bones of your ancestors. Cultures around the world for thousands of years have created beautiful works of art from bones to honer their ancestors and the animals that gave them life. A good example of human bone use in Christianity is the The Sedlec Ossuary located beneath the Church of All Saints in the Czech Republic. The the Church was built in the 1400's and the bone work the was done in 1870. I created the piece to honer a girl that died at a very young age. When I first received the skull it was filthy and decaying. With a lot of cleaning and care I was able to put it back together and create a piece that photographs what I saw in her. The beauty of life and the beauty of decay.
All the cameras I make are my bridges to subjects I wish to learn about. Growing up the priest had tools of Communion made for and from the subject Jesus. I'm doing the same with the subjects I focus on. HIV camera was created after my best friend found he was HIV positive. Heart was created to study the process of birth and my relationship to my twin brother that died at birth. The artifacts that become the parts of my cameras, just seem to come to me at appropriate times in my life. These have been great tools of learning for me.
As far as it being right or wrong to use human remains, that comes from your personal history and belief system. Cultures around the world have incredibly different views on the subject of human remains. From one extreme to the other their tradition is base line normal for that culture. Like in Tibet they still have sky burials. The body is dismembered then fed to Vulchers. What is left over is then ground into a pulp and fed to the Vulchers again till there's nothing left of the body. With the time I have spent in Southeast Asia, I've always had more of a Buddhist path on the subject. A friend of mine that is a Tibetan Lama living here in the US gave me some in-site when I talked to him about The Third Eye and Yama. His view was that skull had the same importance as a fallen leaf or a feather dropped from a bird. The life force was no longer part of the tool.
Well, I hope this helps. I know this process doesn't work for everyone, but works for me.
Also the person that said;
"All in all, this is no different from any other bad mod: Take the guts of some high-tech thing and shove them inside some low-tech thing that looks "cool" in order to get a few oohs from the crowd."
Every part, of every camera I totally fabricate from billet, aluminum, titanium, stainless, and copper by hand, on old school Bridgeport mills and lathes. Nothing is pre-made (except the skulls...), and no CNCed parts ether. So no high-tec thing is shoved into some lo-tec thing. It's not a "mod".
Someone else said that "the picture is a 'shop." I'm not clear on blog lingo, but does this mean the photo was photoshoped?
If so, just to let you know all my photos are gelatin silver prints hand made in my darkroom, using traditional darkroom techniques, on a 4"x5" enlarger with a color head.
This brings up one of my biggest pet peeves. If your going to post your words for a few million people to read, do a little research. It's a good thing to have some kind clue to what you're preaching...
sorry about the mega long post and typos. Just thought some of you may appreciate some answers.
Thanks,
Wayne
Creeper!
Hey Wayne, maybe next time just use a shoe box like everyone else who makes their own pinhole cameras.
Also this is Engadget comments, it's meant to be lighthearted and fun.
Don't try to stink it up with accuracy and research.
The only real question is: was the Girl still a virgin?! ;-)
Mike V...
Sorry, I just couldn't find a shoebox anywhere...
The only thing that bothers me on the camera is that the skull is from someone so young. And missing its front teeth...
And I think this isn't disrespecting the dead. Remember, it's still quite expensive i'm sure. I'd be sure happy if my skull (post mortem) would be transformed into a camera because I love photographing so much..!