!!!!

!!

The Martyrdom of Heinrich Vogtherr !

Gabi Schazin 21 July 2014 HSCI S-154

Early study of anatomy required practices which found varied acceptance across Renaissance

Europe. In fact, the dissection (and, sometimes, vivisection) of animals and humans was an

uncomfortably popular practice in both Italy and The Netherlands, often attracting crowds to

specially built anatomical theaters. But where those theaters and the practices within were not

allowed, anatomists, surgeons, and barbers required other ways to familiarize themselves with

the inner-workings of the human body. Artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius,

Heinrich Vogtherr, and others sought to create representations that would be both accurate and,

where necessary, stand in for the lack of real-world object. Vogtherrs work, in particular, seeks

to mimic the dimensionality of the human body through a technique pioneered by the artist

himself. It is not the novelty of his creations, however, that is of primary interest. Rather, in a

time when becoming one with nature was of high value to the artist, Vogtherr did just that,

offering himself up as a martyr in the effort to depict accurately the human body.

!Heinrich Vogtherrs Anatomies (fig 1)

are a set of two figuresone male, one

femalesurrounded by visual

representations and textual descriptions

of the organs in each human body. The

pieces are particularly notable for the

way in which those organs are put on

display within the human figures:

through flaps, adhered to the sheet of figure 1

linen in layers. Viewers of the illustrations can navigate through the inner-workings of a human

body by browsing each layer, beginning by lifting up the torso, followed by the various organs

within (veins, liver, spleen, heart, lungs, etc.).

!The works themselves were produced by the artist in his printshop in Strasbourg c.1538, and use

a combination of woodcut illustrations with hand-drawn color inking for the human bodies and

their organs, as well as metal type for the textual descriptions. The two figures share many

individual parts, including the legs, arms, and general torso structure. Further, save for the

gender-specific reproductive organs, all of the internal layers are all outlined identically. This

shared simulacrum speaks to the artists choice of medium in general by illustrating a cost and

time savings associated with not having to re-carve new body parts. As these objects were most

likely sold (Carlino 63), the woodcut process would also allow Vogtherrs shop to reproduce the

piece quickly and without much variation.

!Because Vogtherr was both a printer and artist interested in medicine (Belkin), it is likely that he

was closely involved in the construction and reproduction of these pieces. Traditionally, the

16th century print shop was made up of a number of craftsmen, including typesetters, printers,

and proof-readers (Harvard Art Museums), but these pieces have been hand-colored

(Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints), indicating the involvement of another

individual (or team of individuals) tasked with applying the colored ink.

!

These two combined techniqueswoodcut printing

and hand-coloringresult in two pieces that verge on the

realm of naturalist, but come up just short. Dimensionality is

added to the piece through the shadow-lines cut into the

woodblock (fig 2), something that Vogtherr may have been

influenced to do by Albrecht Drer, who had published his

Underweysung der Messund (A Manual of Measurement)

during the previous decade (Mollendorf 7/2, Slide 14). But

the thickness of the linesa property required for a relatively

clear imprint on the press (A Brief Introduction to Relief

Printmaking with Thomas Shahan")hinders the realistic

portrayal of those shadows. The coloring, however, provides

for the inclusion of gradients (fig 3) in darker areas, adding to

the figures realism, especially in the cheeks, sternum, and

arms, though the technique is less successful when color is

placed in areas with many shadow lines, such as the eyes. The

female, in particular, lacks consistent coloring across both of

her irises (fig 4), though this discrepancy, which will be

covered later, exists beyond the shading of her eyes. It should

be further noted that, while the coloring aids naturalism on a

macro-level, a close investigation of the shading reveals areas in which the ink was placed

outside of the woodcut outline (fig 5), breaking the realism of the figure as three-dimensional.

figure 2

figure 3

figure 5

figure 4

As touched upon during an evaluation of the female

eyes, there is a distinct lack of symmetry and proportionality

in both figures, though this quality is exaggerated in the

female form. For instance, a close inspection of the womans

face reveals eyes that are not level with one another, irises that

are not colored similarly, and a cheek bone that seems to

protrude on her left, but not her right side. Certainly, the

human form is not perfectly symmetrical, and so one might be

able to interpret these shortcomings as purposeful and

naturalistic, but the extreme to which they are visible creates

an uncomfortable viewing experience, one that indicates a

lack of attention to the true form. This asymmetry is not as

extreme in the male figure, whose face does not suffer from

the same contortions as the female form (fig 6). Further, his

pectoral muscles, abdomen, and legs (save for the awkwardly

perspectivized feet) seem to model the muscularity of ancient roman gods, as often portrayed

in sculpture form. His belly bloats ever so slightly around the organs (fig 7), a quality which may

be attributed to the fact that the scale of the organs is capped on the small-end by the limitations

of the woodcut process. Because of his muscular stature, however, this bloating is not very easy

to notice offhand.

!

figure 6

figure 7

The female form, on the other hand, begins to suffer significantly from the frugality of its creator

at this point of comparison. Because the male and female must share torso, arms, and legs, much

of her figure is thrown well out of proportion, strongly disrupting any chance at a naturalist

representation. Her breasts seem to float nonsensically on her chest, sitting well above her

swollen belly, that is itself perhaps an indication of pregnancy (especially possible considering

the presence of a small human form inside her uterus). The size of her breasts, however, and the

awkward shadowing on her abdomen (which make it look, ironically, almost flat) create

inconsistencies in supporting this theory. Finally, her arms and legs are extremely muscular,

something that, while contemporary representations of the female form may exhibit without

raising any questions, is highly unlikely in a time when most females (at least, those of the lower

classes) were not participants in sport (Howell and Howell 30).

!These striking inconsistencies leads one to question the artists emphasis on frugality over

realism (orif one is to admit his or her contemporary biasesfairness to the female form). For

instance, could Vogtherr have designed some organs to be present only around the body, rather

than in, precluding the need for the complicated and expensive flap system? Perhaps, but in

doing so, the main motivation to create these sheets would have most likely been jettisoned.

Specifically, as an artist interested in medical learning in 16th century Germany, Heinrich

Vogtherr had very little, if no access to the human dissections occurring in The Netherlands and

Italy. As such, adding dimensionality to a portrayal would have been an extremely novel concept

indeed, Vogtherrs flap anatomies are considered the first such flap-based illustrations of the

human body (Osborn). By layering the organs (albeit out of order as they exist in a normal

human body), Vogtherr sought to convey a knowledge that was not widely available.

!Further, an investigation of the text that accompanies the illustrations supports this theory. While

each organ is labeled in Latin, their descriptions are in vernacular Germanindicating that the

pieces were meant for those who were not necessarily academic or learned (Carlino 63), a large

swath of the population. This is not to say that Vogtherr disregarded the importance of including

the Latin namean action that seems to mirror Leonhart Fuchss approach when he sought to

stem any confusion about the names of the organisms in his 16th century documentation of

plants. As paraphrased by Sachiko Kusukawa, confusion of names means confusion of things

That is, special care was needed in attributing powers to plants, since a false attribution could

endanger life (413). As Vogtherrs piece was most likely used by surgeons and barbers, a

concern over life endangerment would certainly have been a valid one. Both of these strategies

layering the organs as if the artist had been present at a dissection itself and the integration of

detailed, accessible text with the illustrationsindicate an emphasis on imago contrafacta on the

part of the artist. That is, he wished to become one with nature by bringing what he felt was an

accurate representation of that same nature to a broad audience (Mollendorf 7/9, Slides 29-30).

No other element of the anatomies provide stronger evidence for this, however, than the human

forms themselves, specifically their faces and the poses in which they were placed.

!Contemporary viewers may find unsettling the inclusion of dissected organs in a figure that is

clearly still alive: both man and woman have their eyes open and their bodies in deliberate repose

the female has even taken the time to stylishly arrange her hair. Certainly, if dissection was not

commonplace in 16th century Germany, vivisection was not something to even be considered, let

alone practiced. Why then the choice to include a living dissection subject? A return to the

primary goal of imago contrafactafor the artist to be one with naturepoints in the right

direction, as does an investigation into the artist himself. As seen in a 1547 self-portrait of

Vogtherr (fig 8, Blanchard 2), the male figure in the anatomies bears a striking resemblance to

the artist. Placing the two side-by-side (fig 8a, horizontally flipped for comparison) reveals that

the artist and the dissection subject are, if not the same individual, quite closely modeled after

similar figures. One of Vogtherrs most famous works was a booklet he created for artists who

could not afford the time or money to travel to a human model (Belkin), and so he drew detailed

studies of various body parts; he was not a craftsman who struggled with portraying the human

form. And yet he used his likeness for this project. Heinrich Vogtherr became one with nature in

his flap anatomies by showing his anatomy. 1

figure 8 figure 8a

This may also provide insight into the disfigured form of the female figureperhaps Vogtherr 1sought to save money by hiring neither a male, nor female model for the pieces and was not working from nature when arranging her external anatomy.

Imago contrafacta is exhibited further by a brief

investigation into the story of the woodblocks which

Vogtherr used for the prints. According to Andrea Carlino,

author of Paper Bodies: A Catalogue of Anatomical

Fugitive Sheets , the artist eventually left the blocks for use 2

by another printer, Jacob Frilich, who produced a Latin

version of the sheets. The blocks were then copied by a

number of other artists and printers who used them as

templates for the flap anatomy form, which had, by then,

grown in popularity (63). Perhaps by accident, or perhaps

quite purposefully, the face of Vogtherr became the face of

the male figure in flap anatomies.

!The flap anatomies then, are exemplary of early anatomical representations in a number of ways.

In form, they are a natural precursor to the type of dimensionality exemplified by the work of

Andreas Vesalius, who sought the use of shadows and light to present highly realistic figures (fig

9, Mollendorf 7/14, Slide 17)though certainly Vogtherr falls short, especially in comparison to

Vesalius. They also follow the 1509 work by Leonardo Da Vinci to illustrate the female anatomy

without a true representation of her external form (fig 10; note the male pectoral muscles on the

female form (Mollendorf 7/14, Slide 11). Both Da Vincis work and Vogtherrs flaps show a

disregard for the true female structure, the former privileging the male figure in both the

figure 10

figure 9

The term fugitives sheets stems from a literal translation of the German fliegende Blatter, 2also flying leaves (NIH 1, footnote 1).

accuracy of the portrayal and the quality of the print (for

instance, the awkward line across the females neck where a

new block was used, fig 11).

!Most strikingly, however, Vogtherrs flap anatomies represent a concept that would eventually be

prevalent, too, in the Dutch tradition of anatomical theatres, especially those described by Jan

Rupp in his essay, Matters of Life and Death. The anatomical theatre in Leiden was an art-

museum a museum of Vanitas art. It represents the ethos, shared by the artists and the learned

men, of the relativity of the human existence and of the necessity of temperance (273). By

placing living forms in a situation where the living would never survive, Vogtherrs work is a

symbol of memento mori: the reminder that everyone dies.

!Certainly, the spread of accurate anatomical knowledge was a major concern of Vogtherrs and

his contemporaries. In considering the reproducibility and frugality which guided the creation of

his Flap Anatomies, the formal choices he made are put into context. But when Heinrich

Vogtherr used living human forms to represent dissected bodies, he reminds his viewer of lifes

impermanence. In using his form to represent the male, he seeks martyrdom. He becomes one

with nature by killing himself for the good of the field of anatomy. These practitioners often

saw natural knowledge as an area in which they could gain new authority and legitimacy, writes

Pamela Smith in The Body of The Artisan, all based not upon their birth nor upon their

knowledge of elite learning but instead upon their ability to undertake particular practices and

produce tangible effects of objects (19).

figure 11

Works Cited

Blanchard, Donald L. "Vogtherr's Bchlin." Documenta Ophthalmologica 93.1-2 (1997): 73-79. Springer. Web.

A Brief Introduction to Relief Printmaking with Thomas Shahan. Dir. Thomas Shahan. Perf. Thomas Shahan. YouTube. YouTube, 22 Nov. 2011. Web.

Carlino, Andrea. Paper Bodies: A Catalogue of Anatomical Fugitive Sheets, 1538-1687. London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 1999. Print.

Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints. Dir. Jennifer R. Novak. Perf. Theresa Smith. Conservation Focus: Anatomical Flap Prints. N.p., 8 Nov. 2011. Web.

Kristin Lohse Belkin and Josef . Mancal. "Vogtherr." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. . Kusukawa, Sachiko. Leonhard Fuchs on the Importance of Pictures, Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1997): 403-27. !

Maxwell L. Howell and Reet Howell. Women In The Medieval And Renaissance Period: Spectators Only*. Sport History Review 17.1 (1986): 11-37. Human Kinetics Journals. Web.

Mollendorf, Miranda. "Lecture 4, Light and Shadow." Cambridge, MA. 2 July 2014. Lecture.

Mollendorf, Miranda. "Lecture 7, Anatomy." Cambridge, MA. 14 July 2014. Lecture.

Mollendorf, Miranda. "Organizing and Representing Nature." Cambridge, MA. 9 July 2014. Lecture.

Osborn, Catherine. "Flipping through Anatomical Fugitive Sheets." Dittrick Museum. N.p., 26 June 2014. Web.

"Research Tools." Harvard Art Museums. N.p., n.d. Web.

Rupp, Jan C. "Matters of Life and Death: The Social and Cultural Conditions of the Rise of Anatomical Theatres, with Special Reference to Seventeenth Century Holland," History of Science 28 (1990): 263-287.