The strangest characteristic of unconscious processes (...), is due to their complete disregard for the reality test; they equate the reality of thought with external reality and desires with its fulfillment - with the fact - just as it happens automatically under the domain of the old pleasure principle. Hence also the difficulty in distinguishing unconscious fantasies from memories that have become unconscious (Freud, 1911/1980: 285).

In art, mainly in a visceral, marginal, violent or body aesthetic that assumes its primitive characteristics, mainly using sexuality and nudity, outside the standard or pejorating this concept in order to contest colonization under the figure of the tribal body and its yearnings, specifically in performance art or in the image as photo-performance or video-performance we analyze not only a radical critique of one of the main characteristics of the religious and social fetish, but the construction and structuring of the body image.

Be sublime when you turn to art, creation or mystique, be abject when you surrender to your murderous drives, the wicked are a part of ourselves, a part of our humanity, because they exhibit what we never cease to disguise: our negativity itself, the dark part of ourselves. (Elisabeth Roudinesco, 2007, p13, The Obscure Part of Ourselves)

Based on the Lacanian point of view as Roudinesco delves into the book “The Obscure Part of Ourselves” and we also start from a philosophical presupposition, thus analyzing human nature such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, among others, we can consider art as escape valve for perverse minds, and thus, the artistic act a kind of social theater that would be socially conceived.

However, art is reconciled with religious fetishism, specifically by objectifying and, in a way, worshiping the body image. The artist is the narcissist, whose presence is the vulnerability of the body that transitions between the banned / taboo of death, desire and transgression. “My body is the intention. My body is the event. My body is the result ”- Günter Brus


Necrophilia is then treated as questioning religious ethics and political ethics, the duality that exists between “the sacred and the profane, the divine and the human”. This perversity in conjunction with the social life of the necrophile under a judicial and social curation of the State, religiosity, specifically; monotheistic and eurocentrist religions - thus creating the optics and analogy of a Social Theater.

In current Brazilian legislation, despite advances in the field of organ donation and body donation for science, it does not give complete freedom for the individual to define the fate of his corpse in the post-mortem. The family, and the family's desire, are superior to the individual's own desire, since, even for the simplest things, such as organ donation, there is a need for family approval. That said, taking into account the corpse as a matter, the discussion of the dead body being owned by the individual's family, and not by the State.

This issue becomes complicated from the moment that religious freedom is a fundamental right, confirmed in the Federal Constitution. In other words, it is perfectly possible a situation in which there is no organ donation from an individual, who expressly expressed his desire, on behalf of a family, in which, due to religious principles, he did not allow the donation to take place. Thus, it is as if this individual is obliged to follow religious standards that he does not agree with.

It is possible to draw a parallel with the issue of necrophilia. In the Penal Code, the crime of "vilifying the corpse", which is when the honor of the corpse or his family is hurt. In this sense, if we are going to analyze the necrophilic practice as a villain, we can also analyze the situation described above as a villain. It is understood: if the practice of the necrophilic act, or even the plundering of the tombs is considered an act that hurts honor, why wouldn't it be against the principles of the individual before dying?

Perh

aps this parallel is easier to see when analyzing the opposite. Christians bury their dead aiming at the sacredness of the body, in the face of the resurrection of the flesh. Well, wouldn't a family who donated all the organs and then cremate an individual who had these principles not be seen as sacrilegious? Wouldn't it be hurting the honor of this corpse, since the honor also includes the intellectual attributes? What about the state that neglects lives?

What is transgression really?  

Add

— The Body State - The Post Death Performance