Get REAL- Question everything!

Philadelphia in the first half of the nineteenth century was the medical capital of the United States, and I don't mean that as civic boosterism, I mean it as a count of enrolled bodies — Penn's school going back to 1765, Jefferson Medical College chartered in 1824, and then a whole shaggy undergrowth of proprietary schools, which is a polite term for a diploma business run out of a rented hall by four guys splitting the ticket revenue. Because that's what a medical lecture was. Ticket revenue. A student bought a ticket to each professor's course, directly, cash to the man, and after two winters of tickets he was a doctor. No state licensing that meant anything — Pennsylvania's had collapsed, most states' had, the Jacksonian mood being that licensing was monopoly and monopoly was aristocracy, which, fine, it was. So the credential was worth what the school's name was worth and the school's name was worth what its professors could draw.

Which means a professor of surgery in 1841 Philadelphia isn't an academic, he's a headliner, he's carrying the gate.

And Mütter could carry a gate. Jefferson hired him at thirty and he packed the amphitheater — this vain, charming, gorgeously dressed Virginia orphan (raised on somebody else's money after yellow fever took the whole family, there's a whole other post in how many antebellum professional men were orphans capitalized by a guardian's estate, not tonight) who did the surgeries nobody else would touch. Burn contractures, mostly. Women whose faces had fused to their chests because a cooking fire caught the dress — and hold that thought about the dresses, I owe you on it — and Mütter would cut a flap from the unburned back and swing it around and give the woman her neck back. Before anesthesia, most of this. Then ether shows up in late 1846 and he's the first surgeon in Philadelphia to use it, weeks after Boston, because a man whose income is his amphitheater does not let the other fellow demonstrate the miracle first.

The specimens were the same business. You taught from the thing — the wet preparation, the sawed skull, the wax model ordered from Paris at real cost — because the students were comparison shopping and the school with the better collection sold more tickets. A teaching collection was capital equipment. Jefferson's trustees understood their museum cabinet the way a mill owner understood his looms.

So now the 1858 gift reads right. Mütter is dying — gout, lungs, he's mid-forties and wrecked — and he's sitting on a lifetime of accumulated teaching capital that will be scattered at auction the day he stops breathing, the way every dead professor's cabinet got scattered. And across town is the College of Physicians, founded 1787, Benjamin Rush and that crowd, which is not a school at all. A club of the kind of physician who wanted a wall between himself and the diploma-mill trade, and who had lost, remember, the licensing war — the state wouldn't build the wall for them. So the club had to build the wall out of other materials. A library. A fellowship you had to be elected to. And now, for $30,000 and a fireproof building, the finest pathological collection in America.

The club got the collateral. That's what the Mütter Museum is — the physical asset the Philadelphia medical elite borrowed its authority against, in the decades when the law wouldn't underwrite the loan. You couldn't point to a state license, so you pointed to the building. The marble, the specimens, the endowed lecture. Walk a legislator through two floors of catalogued human pathology and the question "what makes you gentlemen different from the botanic healer on Race Street" answers itself, wordlessly, at scale.

Which is insane, a little. We credentialed American medicine on real estate and jarred organs. But it worked.

And the collection kept accreting in exactly that spirit, and every famous object in the place is a receipt from some specific fight if you flip it over. The Hyrtl skulls — the wall of 139 skulls everybody photographs — bought from Joseph Hyrtl of Vienna in 1874, and the point of them was polemic: Hyrtl assembled ordinary named Central Europeans, each skull inked with a name, an age, an occupation, a cause of death, to demonstrate that skull shape tracked nothing — no criminality, no race-science destiny — a standing artillery position against phrenology, which in 1874 was the competition, and the competition was doing numbers. The Chang and Eng material is there because when the most famous conjoined twins on earth died in 1874 the commission that got the autopsy was — well, whose amphitheater do you think? Philadelphia collected the liver like a trading house collecting a famous debt. Grover Cleveland's jaw tumor is in a jar there because the 1893 surgery was done in secret on a yacht in the East River — the country was in a financial panic and a president with cancer would have cratered the gold markets, so they took his upper jaw out at sea and lied about it for twenty-four years — and when the truth finally came out, the specimen surfaced at the College, naturally, because where else does establishment medicine bank its secrets. Einstein's brain slides landed there in 2011 by way of the pathologist who'd simply kept the brain, which is its own whole racket.

The Soap Lady, since you're going to ask — exhumed 1875, a Philadelphia burial ground being cleared for development, and Joseph Leidy paid the exhumation crew for her because her fat had saponified into adipocere. Paid them, the record suggests, by fudging the paperwork fee. The most famous woman in the museum was acquired for something like the price of a good dinner, off a construction site.

Anyway.

Now the supply chain, and I won't be cute about it: the specimens came from the people who couldn't refuse. Almshouse dead, unclaimed dead, and — before Pennsylvania regularized it — the resurrection trade. In 1882 the Philadelphia press caught a ring lifting bodies out of Lebanon Cemetery, the Black cemetery, and selling them to Jefferson's anatomy rooms at a going rate of a few dollars a corpse, with the cemetery's own superintendent in on the take. Somebody's cousin at every gate. The scandal produced the Anatomy Act of 1883, which didn't stop the flow of poor people's bodies into the teaching supply — it legalized it, routed the unclaimed dead to the schools by statute, cut out the middlemen and their wagons. The reform, as usual, was a change of invoice. And the man from Lebanon Cemetery whose name the clerk didn't bother to record is exactly as present in American medical training as Mütter is. More present, by headcount. The clerk just didn't write it down.

I said I'd come back to the dresses, and here it is, quickly: the burn contractures Mütter built his reputation repairing were an industrial injury. Open hearths, whale-oil lamps, and women's fashion in flammable fabrics — the medical literature of the period logs "her clothing took fire" as a routine entry, a thing that just happens, hundreds of times a year in every city, mostly to women, mostly to poor women, because the cheap fabrics burned fastest. Mütter's genius was real. His raw material was the going price of cotton and the absence of a fire-safe lamp. The monster operations were downstream of the dry-goods trade.

Then the whole ecosystem that produced the collection died, on schedule. The Flexner Report in 1910 did what the College's marble never could — got the state and the foundations to torch the proprietary schools, cut American medical schools roughly in half inside twenty years, moved the credential from the professor's gate to the university and the licensing board. The ticket-selling headliner professor went extinct. The teaching collection stopped being capital equipment, because now you taught from slides and journals and, eventually, scans. Every other medical museum in America quietly deaccessioned, rotted, or burned.

The Mütter survived for the most boring reason available, which as regular readers know is my highest compliment: the 1858 contract. Fireproof building, paid curator, endowed lecture, in perpetuity. The covenant outlived the market it was written for, and the collateral just sat there, appreciating into a tourist attraction — some 180,000 visitors a year at its peak, keeping the whole College afloat, the club now living off the cabinet instead of the other way around.

Then 2023: new management pulled the museum's YouTube videos and calaveras merch overnight and announced a rethink of whether the remains should be displayed at all, provenance and consent and all that, and the staff revolted and the goths revolted and half the leadership was gone within a couple of years. And everyone covered this as a culture-war story, the sensitivity people versus the fun-weird people.

But look at the shape of it. A body of physicians, anxious about their profession's legitimacy, arguing that the way you display authority over the dead is exactly what separates real medicine from the disreputable kind. That's not a new argument at the Mütter — that's the founding argument. In 1858 the display was the proof of legitimacy; in 2023 the reluctance to display is the proof; the asset didn't change, the reserve requirement did. The College is doing what it has always done, which is mark its collateral to the current market for respectability.

My bet, flat, no hedge: the Soap Lady is still on view in 2033. The gate revenue is the endowment now, and covenants written by dying surgeons have a way of holding.

The skulls have names painted on them. Hyrtl did that on purpose, in 1874, to win a fight about what a skull could prove.

what a lovely late-impressionist piece blended with evocative leyendecker-esque themes! why haven't you ever heard of this artist before? surely tumblr would be all over an artist like this. who is justin brown?

your two options from here are to do a search for the name, or a reverse image search. i prefer reverse image searching, particularly when it comes to a common name like "justin brown". so what does that net?

Immediately, without looking at any text, something is wrong: it barely exists. an actual historical piece would turn up numerous results from websites individually discussing the piece, but no such discussions are taking place. Looking at the text, though, does show the source-- and at least in this case, the creator was honest about their medium.

But let's also look at the "exact matches", in case a source doesn't make itself apparent in the initial sidebar results like this.

This section will often tell you post dates of images, and here it can be seen that the very first iteration of the image was posted 15 days ago. It did not exist online prior to that.

Seeing how long an unsourced image has been floating around is a skill applicable to more than just generative images! See a cool image of an artifact or other intriguing item with a vivid caption? Reverse search it! If all the results are paired with that caption and only go back a few months, you might just have viral facebook spam.

Sometimes generative creators are dishonest about their medium and do not tag it like in the example, so that's when establishing "jpeg provenance" becomes important. While it can be a little trickier to determine if someone is using generative images and not admitting to it if they aren't trying to pass it off as a classic, something to consider is the age of their account and the frequency with which they post. Here are some account red flags:

-Did they only start posting art after 2022, or if they did before, did their style/skill level WILDLY change? Not gradual improvement-- I'm talking amateur graphite portraits straight into complex digital renders. Everyone starts somewhere, newness is not a red flag alone; it's newness combined with existing in a vacuum away from any community.

-Do they post fully-finished paintings several times a week? -Do many of these paintings seem iterative of a similar theme or subject matter ("three well-dressed young men face each other under shade and dappled sunlight")?

-Does their style change in inconsistent ways? An artist that can swap between painting like Drew Struzan and Hokusai should be pretty well known, right? Why is no one hyping this guy?!

-Do they have social media besides the source instagram? If so, what are they posting about? Are there any WIPs? Doodles? Interactions with other artists? Gallery dates? 3am self-doubt posts? Or is it all self-promo? Crypto? Seemingly nothing art-related at all for someone pushing out 3 weekly paintings?

Basically, if it's important to you to omit this stuff when you curate, please don't just smash reblog if the source doesn't seem to be the OP themselves. Seeking out sources was important even before this became an issue, now it is more than ever.