petergabriel.com

Not art as such but I remember being bowled over by his work when my school bought a book of his photos. Wonderful images of a foetus in the womb. See Editor's Pick on the right of this link. http://life.time.com/

Sadly not in the womb, only in the amnion, Duddy. I'm not fond of those pictures , think they are mortifying...

Here is a quote from the article, Rise: "In other words, while Nilsson (and Karl Storz in Germany and Jungners Optiska in Stockholm, who manufactured special macro-lenses and wide-angled special optics to Nilsson’s specs) revolutionized photography with mind-expanding devices and techniques for in utero photography, it’s worth recalling that not all of the embryos or fetuses seen in that groundbreaking 1965 LIFE article lived very long beyond the moment that Nilsson made their portraits. " Made me wonder how these devices looked like, though I found and still find these pictures a bit odd, but revolutionary

Maybe I should say "disturbing" not odd, seems to be the better phrase

they are incredible. i think the most striking stage is at 8 weeks when the eyes really start to form. it seems to me to be the first stage of self-awareness. all the stages are fascinating though. & the term embryo is greek for swell. i never thought of our development in that term! it is tragic that some of these fetuses never survived but maybe their whole purpose of being was to further our understanding of this delicate gift. rise, you say the photos are 'mortifying'. the definition for mortify reads: 1. a. cause (a person) to feel shamed or humiliated. b. wound (a person's feelings). 2. bring (the body, the flesh, the passions, etc.) into subjection by self-denial or discipline. i don't think these images could humiliate you or that you're in self-denial of something as real as our early stages of development. but how do they wound you?

I just most time have an ungood feeling, when dead persons are used for publicity.

where would we be if leonardo da vinci hadn't visited his local morgue? think of the questions his intricate sketches and drawings answered! http://michellecfecit.wordpress.com/

I know that, Michelle and also agree to that. It's more a question of dignity and a tightropewalk between science, beauty and graving for sensation. These pictures have a high level of science and also beauty- My only doubt is in the dignity of creating .

I didn't know that the foetuses were not in the womb. Maybe if I had thought about it I could have guessed. Still think these are amazing photos even if I am not sure what I feel about the means to create them.

Don’t want to be the "anorak", (that's a nice word I just learnt) the "know it all", but the pictures were taken "in utero" as I quoted. A small part of the fetuses had no change to get born, but their parents decided to make pictures of them. So they had a kind of memory. Maybe not what I had done, but nevertheless most of the fetuses have been born later. Here a link to an interview with Nilsson http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html

Endoscopy now is usual, but in 1965? Anyway- I don't want to be too much "know it all" either, though I am -by nature! Also if I can't find the words, somehow I know it all...that's a quote, my mother often said about babys, and somehow I like it.

Babies are somewhat wise and know everything Rise your mother is right! But, you obviously didn't read the interview with Lennard Nilsson he used devices to do take pictures from inside the womb as early as in the midst 60ties. Now, I suppose these pics did influence Peter in his love for pictures of human life in all its forms

has the term 'embryo' ever been used to describe the universe? if 'embryo' is greek for 'swell' couldn't we refer to the universe as embryonic? it's thought to be constantly expanding.