Yale senior 'induced abortions on herself' for art project

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't think some people fell for it as such, as much as they thought it was interesting conversation (such as myself)

YDN reports she showed them footage of her alone in a shower stall-sometimes naked, sometimes clothed-bleeding into a cup. Which, considering the nature of this incident and the sensationalism surrounding it, I'm guessing depicts her letting her period blood drip out to simulate miscarriage.

For my part, I don't really have a problem with this. She's trying to inspire discourse, and that is fine. I'm not grossed out or shocked by it, and I support her right to do whatever the hell she wants with her own body and the exhibit. I'd probably check it out if I was in New Haven--sounds like quite the project were it to be real.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Well this is interesting:

Yale Daily News - University calls art project a fiction; Shvarts '08 disputes Yale's claim

You guys didn't actually fall for this, did you?

Whenever anything involving an Ivy League school pops up, just check IvyGate: The Ivy League blog. News, gossip, sex, sports and more at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale. You will know the truth sooner rather than later.

Because the university knows whether or not she actually inseminated herself...?

That doesn't even make sense. How would they know if she's disputing it?

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by 7960

there are plenty of things that are "wrong" but should not be illegal.

what she did was wrong, but abortion should not be illegal.

I don't believe in hell but I hope she does, and I hope she knows she's going.

Best quote in this entire topic, I was at a loss for words too but 7960 just found them for me. Thank you.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Can you compare the controversial Goya with this womans bloody discharge?

Saturno is an awesome painting. I saw it in the "flesh" so to speak. Goya's dark period produced some highly intoxicating paintings especially in contrast to his earlier "courtly" pieces of work.

the Prada is a cool museum.

[Linzyhop]

I'm still waiting on thorgrim to explain how religion and morals are the same again. he's avoiding it, and then i say he has no point or is not clear (in another word that apparently upsets him) and then he goes crying infraction to the mods that give me however many retarded infractions.

and at the end i'm still waiting.


and he still hasn't answered the question.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I'm still waiting on thorgrim to explain how religion and morals are the same again. he's avoiding it, and then i say he has no point or is not clear (in another word that apparently upsets him) and then he goes crying infraction to the mods that give me however many retarded infractions.

and at the end i'm still waiting.


and he still hasn't answered the question.

That's what thorgrim does.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by lew

That's what thorgrim does.

He still hasn't provided proof people are buying multipule AR-15's legally, giving them to people who aren't allowed to own them and shooting dozens of people with each.

It is ok to make claims that you can't backup here and call others daft for calling you out.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

For my part, I don't really have a problem with this. She's trying to inspire discourse, and that is fine.

Is this art?

I'm not grossed out or shocked by it

Does this signify to you that the 'display' is not gross or shocking? Should your determination be shared by everyone?

I'd probably check it out if I was in New Haven--sounds like quite the project were it to be real.

What on Earth for? If it is not gross or shocking to you, what you could you possibly gain from the experience but observing a red mess squirting out of a crazy woman?

The only message this woman has for us, if indeed there is any message at all, is the derogation and trivialization of man, and of life itself. It is an ugly, malevolent message delivered by a most ignoble and repugnant beast who feigns humanity.

Her work cannot stand on its own. The only quality to be found in such a display is obscenity.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

What on Earth for? If it is not gross or shocking to you, what you could you possibly gain from the experience but observing a red mess squirting out of a crazy woman?

I wondered that as well, but to each their own I guess

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Is this art?

Sure. Who is to say it isn't?

Art is what you make of it. I think it's art, you do not. Neither of us is really right

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Does this signify to you that the 'display' is not gross or shocking? Should your determination be shared by everyone?

Both the display and the idea itself don't shock or disturb me at all. I'm not asking anyone else to share my views, nor does it really matter to me what someone else thinks of the project. My views are my own.

Originally Posted by RockPusher

What on Earth for? If it is not gross or shocking to you, what you could you possibly gain from the experience but observing a red mess squirting out of a crazy woman?

The only message this woman has for us, if indeed there is any message at all, is the derogation and trivialization of man, and of life itself. It is an ugly, malevolent message delivered by a most ignoble and repugnant beast who feigns humanity.

Her work cannot stand on its own. The only quality to be found in such a display is obscenity.

I completely disagree. She is trying to push the line between art and the human body. The people who cover themselves with tattoos and/or bizarre piercings say they are engaged in "body art." She is trying to do a similar thing, only she's pushing the line one step further, to the point where something inside her own body can be seen as artistic. If no one is willing to continue to push boundaries, then art will die--the tenets of aesthetics have always involved going further and more provocative than your predecessors.

Obscenity is not art, but this is not obscenity (at least in my opinion). Also, I don't believe that she is "feigning humanity"....nothing she is doing involves human life. A fertilized egg in the first few weeks more closely resembles an egg yolk than a human. It is a gooey ball of cells with no agency, no sentience, no ability to think or feel or respond. It is not human life.

[A_C_E]

Shvarts herself isn't even sure she was ever pregnant (I'm gonna go with no):

Shvarts stood by her project, calling the University’s statement "ultimately inaccurate." ...Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.

"No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen," Shvarts said, "because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties."

"Ceci N'est Pas Aborted Baby Matter" - IvyGate: The Ivy League blog. News, gossip, sex, sports and more at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton and Yale

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

Sure. Who is to say it isn't?

Art is what you make of it. I think it's art, you do not. Neither of us is really right

Art is an imaginative work that has some form of intrinsic aesthetic value. Certain elements must be present in a WORK of ART. Design, media, medium. You can attach a message to the artwork, but the message is not the artwork.

Tattoos are designs inked on skin.

Fingernail clippings or excrement could be used as a design, media or medium, but by themselves, they cannot be all of the three.

In the same sense, you could use an aborted fetus as a design, media or medium, but by itself, it cannot be all three.

If a psycho kidnaps a young woman, cuts her nipples off sends photographs of them to the press, police or victims family, they are not art. They are a message, but not art.

If he sends the photos to the Guggenheim, the photos are not magically transformed into art.

Van Gogh's ear was not a work of art.

A ribeye is not a work of art.

A pig fetus in a jar of formaldehyde is not a work of art.

The people who cover themselves with tattoos and/or bizarre piercings say they are engaged in "body art." She is trying to do a similar thing, only she's pushing the line one step further, to the point where something inside her own body can be seen as artistic.

You cannot argue that she is advancing body art by photographing a miscarriage! That is preposterous! If she took her discharge and painted her body with it... !MAYBE! it could be considered art in the most primitive sense, but to compare her abortion to a tattoo artists work is a disgrace to tattoo artists... and I STRONGLY advise against ever uttering such a statement around a tattoo artist.

If no one is willing to continue to push boundaries, then art will die--the tenets of aesthetics have always involved going further and more provocative than your predecessors.

If we destroy the definition of art, art will continue to exist, but the word will be used to describe something else.

You are confusing shock with provocativeness. Provocativeness is not a 'bar' to be raised or a contest to be won.

Shock pieces and obscenity is what is produced by those who cannot produce art. An abortion quite frankly falls short of even shock art. It is obscenity..... pornography at best.

Also, I don't believe that she is "feigning humanity"....nothing she is doing involves human life.

She is not a member of mankind, and in that sense she is feigning humanity. She is a beast.

A fertilized egg in the first few weeks more closely resembles an egg yolk than a human. It is a gooey ball of cells with no agency, no sentience, no ability to think or feel or respond. It is not human life.

Life is life. After a 'few weeks' the fertilized ovum is animal. That is why if you mug a early term pregnant woman and punch her womb into miscarriage, you can be convicted of murder.

This however, should not be a question of what is life, it is a question of what is art.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Life is life. After a 'few weeks' the fertilized ovum is animal. That is why if you mug a early term pregnant woman and punch her womb into miscarriage, you can be convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court disagrees. You've never read PP v. Casey, have you

Before the point of viability (~usually 4-5 months pregnant), the fetus is not considered a human and has no rights. Therefore it cannot be murdered, and you cannot be charged as such.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

The Supreme Court disagrees. You've never read PP v. Casey, have you

Before the point of viability (~usually 4-5 months pregnant), the fetus is not considered a human and has no rights. Therefore it cannot be murdered, and you cannot be charged as such.

This however, should not be a question of what is life, it is a question of what is art.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

This however, should not be a question of what is life, it is a question of what is art.

People have been disagreeing over what art is for thousands of years. Why should we expect to, or even be able to, render an agreement?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

This however, should not be a question of what is life, it is a question of what is art.

I think the question of whether or not something is life is pertinent to the thread, if there was a consensus that something wasn't really 'life' until Week X, there wouldn't be nearly the moral outrage over this

There'd still be some questions about whether it was art, but not nearly the scrutiny and press this has received.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

People have been disagreeing over what art is for thousands of years. Why should we expect to, or even be able to, render an agreement?

That is where you are wrong. There has been a very clear understanding of what art is for thousands of years. It is only now that there is confusion on the subject.

Visual art requires a design(the visual expression), generated by media (tools/instruments) on a medium (canvass/physical form).

You can try to argue that this beast was performing a dance if you like, but passing material from an orifice does not contain the elements of a work of visual art. As I said, if she smeared her defective material on her body in a directed fashion, then MAYBE it could be considered.... but as it stands, she is just some twisted fruit messing up a shower stall with her excretions.

For an interesting 'animated' viewpoint on this, ask a tattooist or a dancer if this foul critter is representing a valid expression of their fields of art.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think the question of whether or not something is life is pertinent to the thread, if there was a consensus that something wasn't really 'life' until Week X, there wouldn't be nearly the moral outrage over this

There'd still be some questions about whether it was art, but not nearly the scrutiny and press this has received.

Point taken.

Life is easier to demonstrate than personage. If it is animated tissue, it is an animal.... i.e. it is alive.

The outrage is generated by the message.... an insult to and the degradation of life.

A message is not art, and art is not a message. Art may convey a message, but one is not required to define a piece of art.


She sure has a message. I am sure she will get a response to it. Controversy is not art. Art can be controversial... or not...

Good art does not require controversy or shock to provoke... in fact the very best art on earth is utterly free from controversy or shock.

Shock is used by those who cannot provoke someone with their work without offending their senses.