Comments on: An evocative biomedical object: the HeartMate mechanical heart

By: Udstillingsfraklip | Museionblog

Udstillingsfraklip | Museionblog — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:38:11 +0000

[...] godt mærke, at vores begejstring ikke smittede. Vi forsøgte fx at få den kunstige hjertepumpe HeartMate med, men den var ikke umiddelbart lige så fængende meget som fx barneskelettet fra en engelsk [...]

By: Søren

Søren — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:50:42 +0000

The Akutsu III makes my heart green with envy…

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:08:38 +0000

'Acquisition envy'---that's a nifty concept :-) And apparently not much used in museum circles either (if we can trust Google).

By: Simon Chaplin

Simon Chaplin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:01:22 +0000

Ahh… curators and acquisition envy.
The LVAD is so evidently ‘unheartlike’ that it encourages the kinds of responses that Thomas describes. But the point about its mechanical heft is intriguing: yes, it does look bulky and clumsy (and feels that way too), but what are we comparing it with? A healthy, living human heart is a wonderfully compact and elegant organ, but diseased hearts – distended, enlarged, clogged – are different, and of course it is these that the LVAD assists. For a contrast, what about this, a true ‘bionic’ heart. Unlike the LVAD, this was designed to actually take the place of the heart. It is smaller and lighter and has a wonderful organic quality to it – more ‘heartlike’, you could say. But then this only succeeded in keeping a patient alive for hours, whereas the LVAD works for much longer.

By: Søren

Søren — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:12:07 +0000

Thanks for all this, Mike and Thomas.

I think you both point to very interesting features of the mechanical heart as a museum object. Thomas definitely draws out potent interpretational points about the object, and I think you are quite right in also stressing the sensual aspects of engaging with it. But I find it difficult to work out how to transform your criteria into operational guidelines for future acquisition activities. There, I think Mike is probably more useful in stating more general characteristics of evocative objects.

I think the HeartMate draws a lot of its attraction from its curious nature. Even if it is not unique or even very rare, it conflicts with our common views of our bodies and of the nature of recent biomedicine in ways that are characteristic of curiosities or anecdotes. It just doesn’t fit into our normal patterns of thought. Such objects will be good museum objects until their curiosity disappears in time, but precisely because they contradict patterns, I think it is difficult to pin down their attractiveness in great detail.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:13:27 +0000

That’s interesting! The reasons it gets a high score on my ‘good artefacts’ scale are:

1) first, the tangible presence effect: it feels HEAVY when you hold it! Imagine having that heavy beast in my abdomen! Will it also feel heavy after implantation?

2) second, it stimulates my bionic fantasy. The spare part utopia (or dystopia if you want). (See Project Bionics)

3) third, it makes me oscillate between wonder and disappointment. On the one hand it’s a technical feat. On the other hand (and paradoxically) I’m disappointed: it looks just like a pump – an ordinary pump. Could be a spare part in a car or something in a cow-stable. Modern medicine is supposed to be so high-tech, and the immediate impression is old-style pump!

4) fourth, this gadget epitomizes the absurd inequalities of the contemporary global health care sector. If I remember rightly, they only produced some 4000 copies of HeartMate. and each of them cost over 100.000 USD. Okay. it’s not the price of a Lexus, but much more than you would expect from a medical gadget. It’s 100.000 times more than the little bag with salts that keeps diarrhea victims from dying in Bangladesh. It’s obscene to imagine that one HeartMate benefactor is worth a hundredthousand lives in some parts of the world.

By: Mike Rhode

Mike Rhode — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:53:35 +0000

My guess is that it’s partly an appreciation of a new technology, partly a question of rarity and partly an awareness of transience (ie devices like this will probably be extensively modified soon in Museum time). And then there’s the Gee-Whiz factor for us older people. A pump! That works as a heart and you can move around! Gee-Whiz!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:09:24 +0000

I agree, Mike, it's a great artefact. That was my reaction too, and so thinks everyone here---for example, Bente immediately made it picture of the month ('Månedens billede') on our website. This appreciation of the HeartMate raises a more general curatorial question: What is it actually that makes an acquired artefact an excellent/great/good etc. one ? What qualities must it have? In other words, if acquisitions really are the life-blood of and nourishment for museums, I think we need to analyse what constitutes high-calory stuff. Is it in the eyes of the beholder only, or are there 'universal criteria'? The question is related to similar questions about what constitutes a good theory, a valid fact, a great piece of art, etc. so it's not an easy one. But I think it's central to our business.

By: Mike Rhode

Mike Rhode — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:36:14 +0000

Oh, excellent acquisition. The Smithsonian tends to get more hi-tech gee-whiz donations than the NMHM so we don’t have any of these artificial heart-type things yet. We do have an excellent collection of artificial heart valves though.