Loading ...
[Okay. So now maybe it WASN’T fake?!]
[Editor’s Note: since this story was published, Schvarts has admitted to faking the reality of the situation. Her project was to induce conversation about such topics, not actually do them]
Well if my massive hangover wasn’t enough to get me to barf this morning, this story will surely help.
It seems that the line between what is art and what is downright vulgar and disgusting is a lot finer than believed. Aliza Schvarts, an art student at Yale, artificially inseminated herself repeatedly while simultaneously taking medications to induce miscarriages…for her senior art project.
The final product is “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….”
I consider myself to be quite liberal and extremely cultured, yet even I am not sure how comfortable I am with this project, let alone its merits as art. I may not be a Yale art student, but even I know that 1) this is really not safe for anyone’s body, and 2) a video of a woman in pain and the physical evidence of it all should not be considered art.
If Schvarts wanted attention for her work, she has succeeded. If she wanted praise, she may have to look a little harder. Read the article and let me know your thoughts. Is this art? Is this moral? Is this something Yale should have allowed?
14 Comments
This is Art alright,..the “art” of stupidity!
It is an injustice to the name of art to call idiotic feats of lunacy the same as say,…a Degas or Dali painting.
This reminds me of another story where an “artist” let a dog starve to death in an exhibit where everyone stood around with drinks and hor’dourves and the poor emaciated, chained canine didn’t even have drop to drink. See this link: http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i116/maryalice01/DOGSTARVEDINTHENAMEofART.jpg
There is nothing “skillful”, “imaginative”, or “decorative” (Webster’s dictionary terms used in the definition of art) about these replusive actions of someone who seems to have a underlying personality/emotional issue that is controlling these horrible acts, under the guise of “Art.”
What a lame excuse!
It is a cry for psychological help and a unexcusable stunt for attention.
It’s a downright PATHETIC excuse for cruelty, disrespect, disgusting crudeness, and/or idiocy.
I lean liberal/Independent (though I try not to identify with such political labels,), and I love art,…but this is NOT art, other than, well, like I said, the “art” of stupidity.
Statement by Helaine S. Klasky — Yale University, Spokesperson
New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008
Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.
She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.
Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.
Looks like she lied. Well, we can hope so anyways. I am also a liberal, but there is a difference between having rights and abusing them.
More dating tips can be found at stdromance com site. good luck
Well, at first I was severally conflicted as to how she could do that to herself and not inflict harm on her physical or emotional well-being. But now that I see it was, well, not a hoax, but a play if you will, I think it’s one of the most brilliant ideas for a piece I have ever seen. It completely qualifies as art in the same was a stage production would.
Yes, because of the construction, filming one’s self acting out miscarriages as well as the false blood, but more because of the very idea that she might have actually done it. It adds a whole new element, doesn’t it?
I say well done with this “creative fiction,” it added a whole new element to the dialogue.
yeh Kat^, it’s about as creative as someone “pretending” to stab old women, cook and eat infants, slash their wrists, perform beastiality, or crush kittens alive.
Not art IMO, but at least (supposedly) it is a hoax.
Either way, Yale shouldn’t have allowed it. Hoax,..er play or esp. reality.
A little moderation, respect, and taste would be nice.
Cause even though as Dasha said “She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.” it’s like she ALSO said, ” there is a difference between having rights and abusing them.”
Where does being “tolerant” cross the line? Here for one place, I’d say.
I’ve been an artist all my life, and will continue to be one…but sometimes I have to wonder…does pushing the envelope like this (even if it was fake) really equal art? Or does it just equal pushing the envelope?
I am also a lifelong artist, and I completely agree with J-NYU.
I’m all for free expression and open art, but I have a hard time wiewing this as such, rather than more of a publicy stunt.
It’s all fake anyway - she admitted she was full of shit.
She got her 10 minutes. She can move on now.
Whoa. I mean, I’m open to ‘performance art’ and am a fan of Marina Abramovic, but I stop there. See her bio, etc. here: http://www.spikyart.org/seveneasypiecese.html.
After discussing this with my bf, he said, “uh, decadent . . . nice cavalier attitude towards life? Wow, we can make art out of ’self-induced abortions’”
“Yeah, right. We’re, like, way cooler than those Renaissanice phonies!”
Blech . . . she’ll only be cool and a ‘real performance artist’ is she drinks the, uh, leftovers. Now, if that’s the case, I’m buyin’ me a ticket and comin’ from Kansas to see that shit! Whoo-hoo!
I also am an artist and I do multimedia, installation, and performance pieces. The question is not “is this art” because none of us can really decide that. The question should be “is this good art? is it valid?” I believe the answer is certainly not. She said her objective was to open discussion about the human relation to the body. She did not do this. The only thing she did was anger many people and only admit “the truth” when people started screaming for her head.
Lying in art is not new, many artists use it as a very good catalyst for getting their viewer to think.(Especially conceptual art) The problem I have with this girl is that I doubt she did this for art’s sake, I doubt she did it to say anything, I doubt she did it to make people reexamine themselves and think. To me she wanted attention, which granted is often hard for an artist to get.
If this was the way she wanted to get her name out there and establish a reputation, so be it. But we don;t have to like it. She probably should have taken some business ethics and self marketing classes!
http://www.dlisted.com/node/25337 - so, check this story out. The artist is claiming that Yale’s statement is “inaccurate.”
http://perezhilton.com/2008-04-18-she-really-did-it
More of the “artist” (or attention seeker rather) claiming that Yale’s statement is “inaccurate.”
Agreed, Janers.
i think she’s brilliant in her own way, especially in an era where women’s rights have stagnated and our control over our own bodies is constantly threatened by conservative power mongers.
and as for the “dog starved to death” case… use Snopes.com, it does wonders. (http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp)
Post a Comment