High tech scans reveal Rodin's hands 

5nyt up tnmyuu6uu up Tyr m up 55mtuj my UN ym 5m5myym5mm mutiny mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmm5mmmmmmoooommm5mmmommmmmmmmm mum 4ym5muh5muyyuuuumumu7ui5757uu7777uum uninjured 44uju44uju

dlwatib; you're absolutely right. A good illustration in an anatomy book is not art at all, nor does it pretend to be. Great art uses anatomical understanding for the purpose of expression and insight, not for medical accuracy. How accurate - medically/scientifically - would be the purposefully rendered distortions of Tintoretto, El Greco, Botticelli, all Medieval sculpture, Donatello, Michelangelo and Rodin himself - all done to achieve the end of a heightened artistic expressionism? If a scientist tried to operate upon the basis of these expressionistic distortions the results would obviously be disastrous. These academics make it sound as if some new breakthrough in understanding has been achieved here, when I don't see that any has. Modern medical doctors have recognized medical conditions in paintings and sculptures - rendered unconsciously by artists based on their powers of observation and representation - for at least a century. Artists such as Albrecht Durer drew pictures of his own medical problems in the 1500's and sent them off to doctors in distant cities for analysis and diagnosis. It's good that a doctor in training would look at a hand sculpture by Rodin (as it would be worthwhile for anyone); but the idea that he/she would gain better expertise as a doctor seems rather silly. The medical anatomical models they already have work just fine for their purposes. But then academics love to make it seem as if they are breaking new ground and boldly thinking outside the box. And the idea of an art/technology/medical science interface is just too sexy for them to pass up. Much ado about nothing.