"Grover Krantz (1931-2002) was known as a teacher, a loving pet owner, an eccentric anthropologist, and the first serious Bigfoot academic. Seven years after losing a battle to pancreatic cancer, Krantz’s reputation is still well preserved, in more ways than one. His skeleton and that of his giant Irish Wolfhound Clyde are now on display at the 5,000 square foot exhibition “Written in Bone: Forensic Files of the 17th-Century Chesapeake,” which opened last Saturday at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History."—from the Smithsonian website
“I certainly hope that no one looks to this
exhibit for information on the correct positioning of the dog’s shoulder
blades; I’ve owned sight hounds for many years, and never have I had an animal
who’s shoulder blades traveled to this position on the body when the animal
stood upright … in this photograph, the dog’s shoulder blades are pushed all
the way back parallel to the animal’s spine and upper rib cage. Wrong!”—Rick
Smith
“I
am quite shocked that the esteemed Smithsonian would allow on display such a
poorly reconstructed skeleton of a dog (i.e, the Irish Wolfhound above). The
shoulder assembly is all wrong, with the scapula located mid-ribcage! Excuse
me? Canine anatomy 101 needs to be reviewed and the dog skeleton on display
adjusted. Or should we next expect the dear Doctor’s ulna to be attached to his
clavicle.”—Lynn Reagan-Hull
The shoulder assembly is most problematic, though there are other details—note how the esteemed doctor leans in to the dog in the lower photo. His head is over his own feet, not behind them.
Does this seem like a trivial mistake? It is significant to anyone who knows dogs, and certainly to anyone who values scientific accuracy. We should be able to trust that those entrusted with assembling a skeleton would have enough knowledge to assemble it correctly, or the good sense to do necessary research.
Am I completely off base by instead focusing on the gesture and meaning? They are forever bonded and the expression and meaning are bittersweet. The imperfections do not bother me in the least. It would bother me if perhaps the tail bones were coming from the dog's forehead, but until that happens, I really love this. I understand how these mistakes would bother those who study anatomy and similar, but to the non-informed (like me), I think it's loving illustration of the bonds formed in life. Thank you for sharing this, Jan!
ReplyDeleteYes, it's a sweet tribute made possible by the insistence of Grover Krantz.
DeleteThe dog's skeleton and the overall balance of the figures are both off, which bothers me as an artist. I am also bothered as a dog lover, by how little thought was apparently given to accurately preserving Krantz's Irish Wolfhound, Clyde.
Doing it correctly would not have altered the sentiment. Doing it wrong seems disrespectful to the dog and the man who loved him.
The sentiment is in tact, yes. It is a "loving gesture" as I noted above, but it would be every bit as charming if it were accurate, and since this is a scientific exhibit, it seems to me there is little excuse for getting the facts wrong. The errors are egregious, whether they bother the ordinary public or not—roughly equivalent to having the head of a human thigh bone attach at the ribcage instead of the pelvis—the placement of the dog's scapula is that far off. Just because he's a dog, doesn't mean that he doesn't matter. I feel it's disrespectful to both the dog and the man who loved him, a scientist after all, to get it wrong. That's why I posted.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, and I guess I didn't think about it that way. It definitely could be read as disrespectful. It is disappointing that they got it wrong, afterall, it is the Smithsonian. I would think that they would have especially high standards, so the question is how could they let this pass? It is a let down of standards.
ReplyDelete