Yale senior 'induced abortions on herself' for art project

[motivez]

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse

Wow.

I don't even know really what to say about this other than it's seriously disturbing to me. Do you guys think Yale should prevent her from showing the project?

I have to agree that by doing this she's somewhat trivializing the importance and impact many women have made to have an abortion, but I don't think she's abused her constitutional rights..

I really think all colleges and universities should be a place for the free exchange of ideas, art, etc.. but showing videos of miscarriages and draping blood splattered plastic all over for a senior project kinda seems like it's taking it a bit far.

[Linzyhop]

um yeah. i dont know if its against the law or should be, but i definitely think it's morally wrong.

creating a life with the sole purpose of destroying it is just... wow.

[JaJae]

I saw this on the drudge list, and saw it intrigued me, but I was on the run and didn't click and forgot about it. I'm glad you posted it. I have to say this is very, very disturbing. I think Yale as a university does have the ability to prevent it from being displayed. I think they have to exhibit some discretion and they are well within their moral bounds to block this. There aren't many things I'd say they should/could block for an art exhibit, but this definitely falls under that category. Not only shouldn't they encourage this behavior, but they have to set some standards. To go to another extreme, what's to stop another stupid from chopping off his penis and asking to put it and the wound on display for art?

If I were in charge of Yale I'd block this display and would probably make her see a shrink before allowing her to continue her education there. I don't think I'd cut her off completely, but I wouldn't allow her back the following semester unless she utilized the psychological facilities available to students for free on campus.

And I agree this trivializes abortion. It's disgusting that someone would be so comfortable with the idea of abortion that they'd do it continually and purposely for reckless reasons.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't even know really what to say about this other than it's seriously disturbing to me. Do you guys think Yale should prevent her from showing the project?...
I really think all colleges and universities should be a place for the free exchange of ideas, art, etc.. but showing videos of miscarriages and draping blood splattered plastic all over for a senior project kinda seems like it's taking it a bit far.

If I ran Yale, I would make sure that this 'grand work' is not displayed. Further, to ensure the reputation and integrity of the university, I would ensure that the faculty of the art department would vocally reject this project as vile filth lacking any artistic merit whatsoever. If the University does not step in on this matter, the standards set by its inaction will guarantee more shock filth and less art will be produced by Yale.

Sickening....

[thewise1]

I'm at a loss for words.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'm at a loss for words.

I think that Motivez has framed a discussion that every person on this board will agree on.

[thewise1]

I don't think she's abusing a constitutional right, except for the one that her offspring have to life, liberty, etc etc.

But obviously, I don't expect an outpouring of support in that regard from most folks here.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'm at a loss for words.

for real.
I am making this face:

[7960]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'm at a loss for words.

yep.

In the same day that I read a story about a guy (who did not live there) running into a burning building to warn a dozen people and probably saving a dozen lives, I read about this piece of shit getting pregnant just so she can abort it for a grade.

I think it's bad karma to wish negative things of someone, but I really hope what she did ends up leaving her unable to have kids.

[lew]

She should be executed.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

She should be executed.

That seems excessive, care to expand on why you feel this way?

[Thorgrim]

I'm a bit confused, under Jewish Law, someone is not a full fledged "Jew"/"Person" until they turned 30 days old

This was started because so many infants/miscarriages that the question of "how many sons have you had...how many died..." was pretty easy, you only counted the ones past 30 days old

However practical this may be, the fact is that it became sacred, it became morality, it became tradition

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."

That's why in the Bible itself:
Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

Says that the offender should not pay for causing a miscarriage, only for additional assaults (such as the bruise he caused on her face, etc...in an assault)

Numbers 5

17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell
Numbers 5:21 Or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness

It's quite clear to me that God is sanctifying a priest to carry out an abortion...and even if it's not to you, many Jews take it that way and who are you to argue religion?

To get to the point:

If a religion and moral code do not recognize a fetus as anything of any value, who are we to legislate morality to them?

The question becomes, even though it is not illegal, should we change our laws to surpress someone else's religion and morality because it makes us feel uncomfortable?

(Edit was to change 30 to 30 days old)

[hsmith]

did they tickle?






I really dont know how I feel about this. I only think abortion should be used when necessary, not because you are bored.

[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.

[WickedLou9]

I honestly think that this girl has some serious issues and needs counseling. It seems like the same sorta thing as people who cut themselves.

[Donkey®]

I think she's a psychopath...and the project is moronic...but I don't really care one way or another.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I'm a bit confused, under Jewish Law, someone is not a full fledged "Jew"/"Person" until they turned 30

This was started because so many infants/miscarriages that the question of "how many sons have you had...how many died..." was pretty easy, you only counted the ones past 30

However practical this may be, the fact is that it became sacred, it became morality, it became tradition

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."

That's why in the Bible itself:
Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

Says that the offender should not pay for causing a miscarriage, only for additional assaults (such as the bruise he caused on her face, etc...in an assault)

Numbers 5


It's quite clear to me that God is sanctifying a priest to carry out an abortion...and even if it's not to you, many Jews take it that way and who are you to argue religion?

To get to the point:

If a religion and moral code do not recognize a fetus as anything of any value, who are we to legislate morality to them?

The question becomes, even though it is not illegal, should we change our laws to surpress someone else's religion and morality because it makes us feel uncomfortable?

this isn't religion it's "art". it still doesn't make it morally right.

stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

this isn't religion it's "art". it still doesn't make it morally right.

stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

religion is morality...

Can you ever say anyone who is following their religion, whether it's orthodox judaism or theravada buddhism or whatever...is immoral?

It used to me "immoral" to give a loan with interest, even a 10-year, huge loan, with 1% interest...many here would consider that a great gift...but it used to be an immoral act

[6SpeedTA95]

Man thats wierd I was about to post this. Came back from lunch and a couple of the guys at work pulled up an article on this and were buzzing about it.

This in my opinion is abuse of her constitutional rights. She's creating life and destroying it solely because she can. Assuming abortion is constitutional (and according to the supreme court it is) then it should be done for reasons to protect the mothers life (as the supreme court stated). This is pretty disturbing...should it be illegal? Yeah it probably should be, how do yo umake this illegal without destroying a mothers right to choose? Ehhh I dont honestly know...but I'm also shooting from the hip here based on my gut reaction to this pretty sick story.