Miscarriage Art. Or, how to make a name for yourself very quickly

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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. Story here. (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513)

But now she's saying she faked it:

A Yale student's stunning claims of repeatedly artificially inseminating herself and then taking drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project aren't true, the university said Thursday night. Story here. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html)

[scaeagles]

I had read about this. That is one seriously sick person.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I read that and never quite figured out what her point (if she had one) was anyway.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

She said it was "not intended for 'shock value'" - but that rather seemed to be the case.

[SacTown Chronic]

She can go fvck herself. And then, uh, somehow un-fvck herself.

[Ghoulish Delight]

She said it was "not intended for 'shock value'" - but that rather seemed to be the case.
Yes, but shock in a way that seemed to fail to actually impart a coherent viewpoint on the subject of shock from the artist. Shock for shock's sake, and it really seems like she didn't even understand what her actions (or alleged actions) meant.

[Alex]

Undergraduate art majors with no clear message or focus to their results? Un-possible.

[€uroMeinke]

And yet - I have to applaud this misguided pushing of the envelope on limits of choice - even if fake.

[lashbear]

I just get the feeling that the whole thing will have the world saying "only in America"...

Maybe because of the media's desensitisation of young people to horrific events like this (and other distasteful acts, ie: Saw, Hostel, Hannibal etc) - also the annual portrayal of vomiting, crapping, disembowelling etc as entertainment during Halloween season, the young folk don't see the disturbing side of portraying this kind of thing for "entertainment" or "art"

...just a theory.

[€uroMeinke]

Yeah, hard to comment really without seeing/experiencing the piece in context - the descriptions I've read indicate the piece is rather unsettling and not something someone experiences as an "oh how pretty" moment.

As a conceptual piece though, it does illustrate what one might be in the law to do - to use one's flesh as medium.

[lashbear]

Oh, and the cynic in me says "Why didn't she plan on serving Raspberry Jam on crumpets to each person who walks in the exhibition, in order to increase the visceral reaction?" :rolleyes:

[Kevy Baby]

"Why didn't she plan on serving Raspberry Jam on crumpets to each person who walks in the exhibition, in order to increase the visceral reaction?" :rolleyes:The answer to that question is easy: because crumpets don't have the right texture/consistency.

[lashbear]

How do YOU kn... oh, never mind.

[Not Afraid]

Conceptually, it brings up a LOT of rich discussion - which I applaud. I ALWAYS love it when art pushes broundries, even if I don't like my boundries pushed upon. If she faked it, well, it would have been better if she didn't first claim to create the piece as more than a conceptual piece of art.

I think the fact that she chose to artificially inseminate herself is extremely interesting. (I would've taken the opportunity to justify my slutdom.;))

Very interesting. I love that is it causing a stir at Yale - which has such a fantastic art program at the moment (one of the best in the country.)

[3894]

A gas station cozy (http://www.internationalfibercollaborative.com/)

[Kevy Baby]

A gas station cozy (http://www.internationalfibercollaborative.com/)IMO, this doesn't belong in this thread. Because (again, IMO), the crap in the OP was not art (the subject matter; not the poster). This is.

[3894]

IMO, this doesn't belong in this thread. Because (again, IMO), the crap in the OP was not art (the subject matter; not the poster). This is.

My bad. I thought the thread subject had morphed into What Is Art?.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Kevin, I know that it is your opinion that the OP is not art. I don't agree with you - but I don't have an appreciation for her work, exactly. Only an interest in furthering the discussion of what art is and is not, or should and should not do.

Helen's related "what is art" question is really what I had intended to provoke by posting the controversy. I think it belongs here as much as in its own thread.

[Kevy Baby]

Kevin, I know that it is your opinion that the OP is not art. I don't agree with you - but I don't have an appreciation for her work, exactly. Only an interest in furthering the discussion of what art is and is not, or should and should not do.

Helen's related "what is art" question is really what I had intended to provoke by posting the controversy. I think it belongs here as much as in its own thread.I definitely wasn't trying to slam Helen's post. Quite the opposite: I felt her post was much closer to what I would consider art. I feel that it soils Helen's link.

And as we both have alluded, art is in the eye of the beholder. I personally believe that it is NOT art just because one labels it as such. Pushing boundaries is one thing, but I believe that this (and smearing feces, et. al.) is over the line. It is not art, it is gross stupidity.

I am sure that I will be slammed for this opinion, but it is how I feel. I intentionally stayed out this conversation before, but I guess that is over now.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I'm not going to slam you for the opinion. Not at all. One doesn't start a discussion because they want to hear only one side of an argument. (Or, one shouldn't!)

[Morrigoon]

I just get the feeling that the whole thing will have the world saying "only in America"...

Maybe because of the media's desensitisation of young people to horrific events like this (and other distasteful acts, ie: Saw, Hostel, Hannibal etc) - also the annual portrayal of vomiting, crapping, disembowelling etc as entertainment during Halloween season, the young folk don't see the disturbing side of portraying this kind of thing for "entertainment" or "art"

...just a theory.

As an American, I disavow any responsibility for this work, as France and the Marquis de Sade had us beat by centuries.

[Strangler Lewis]

It is not art, it is gross stupidity.

I am sure that I will be slammed for this opinion, but it is how I feel. I intentionally stayed out this conversation before, but I guess that is over now.

Just because something is art doesn't mean it isn't gross stupidity.

[Kevy Baby]

Just because something is art doesn't mean it isn't gross stupidity.But I maintain that the alleged self-insemination/abortion act is not art, just gross stupidity.

[Alex]

But since you acknowledge that art is in the eye of the beholder, it isn't that it isn't art, it just isn't art to you. So it may very well legitimately be art to a lot of other people.

[3894]

What's the difference between what the Yale student said she did and Ed Gehn who made lampshades out of human skin and dug up dead bodies to obtain said materials? Was he making an artistic statement with his lampshades?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I'm pretty sure those lampshades were art to Ed, at least. Not that I'm encouraging dead body art. But then, what's the difference between, say, a human-skin lampshade and displaying other "dead" or "suffering" art, a la the Necromance store on Melrose? Would you display a human skin lamp? Would you display a bear skin rug? Would you display lotus slippers that were used to bind someone's feet? In a museum? In your living room?

My answers is: I don't know. No, I wouldn't personally want to see a Gein exhibit. But I can't say it isn't art, of a sort. But because the line is so personal, so objective... I'm fascinated with what people appreciate and what they don't.

[Morrigoon]

How would you define the difference between an art and a craft?

I think we can at least agree that the lampshades were a craft, even if we don't know whether they were also art.

And I hate to say it, but being that he was a Nazi, I think we know what his "statement" would be with that one.

[Alex]

Here's my approximate definition of art and it has almost nothing to do with the product involved (and it has definitely changed a lot over the years; not too long ago I would have been among those wondering why much in SFMOMA is considered art).

Art is the intersection of the ego implicit in standing before the world and saying "this thing, for which I am responsible for placing in this context/configuration/construction/composition, is worthy of your attention simply as the thing it is" and at least one other person saying "you're right."

[Kevy Baby]

Art is the intersection of the ego implicit in standing before the world and saying "this thing, for which I am responsible for placing in this context/configuration/construction/composition, is worthy of your attention simply as the thing it is" and at least one other person saying "you're right."By that definition, a flasher (well, his appendage at least) is considered art. The cop who busts him is that one person saying "you're right"

[Alex]

Sure, perhaps. And getting arrested doesn't necessarily make something less art. Graffiti can certainly be art but I have no problem with the idea that the person doing it should be arrested if caught.

After all, no one really argues that it could be art (the flashing) when done on a stage. At which points in the millions of ways we can think to iteratively subtly alter that agreed upon starting point does it lose that essence? I would argue that so long as you maintain that connection between the "artist" and the "enabler" then it is still art. Perhaps art that gets you put in the slammer. Quite likely art that I have zero interest in seeing. But then if me liking/approving of something is a required element of being art the world of generally accepted art would get much smaller.

[Not Afraid]

Being arrested does not make something art or not. Chris Burden, a very recognized contemporary artist, was arrested during a performance piece in LA. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. What the artist in the PS was doing was not illegal in any way.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Having read through all of these posts, I'm inclined to quote Alex and just say, "What he said."

When one considers both context and audience, just about anything can be called "art with a capital A."

On the whole, I'm often more interested in the ideas behind conceptual art than I am in the piece, work, presentation, etc. itself. I suppose in many cases that's its intention, but my frustration with art that's meant to be seen is that a lot of conceptual art, in my opinion, simply isn't interesting to look at. I often find myself thinking, "Write an essay," or "This would make an interesting short story," even if the discussions that come about as a result of the work are interesting and worthwhile. I usually avoid them, though, because my primary response is, "Meh, give me Rothko and Mark Ryden." I have an aesthetic/visceral response to that kind of work. Enjoyment of the work can be independent of its intention, meaning, purpose, etc. I suppose I personally enjoy artwork where my initial, knee-jerk response is something other than, "What art essay do I have to read before I can understand this..."

Nick Hornby wrote one of my favorite short stories for a collection he edited, Speaking With the Angel, called "Nipple Jesus," which beautifully and humorously explores the "It's art / It's not art" debate, and is well summarized here (http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/1573228583.asp).

To quote:
One of the best stories in the collection comes from the amazingly well-connected Hornby. Narrated by a bouncer turned art gallery security guard, "Nipple Jesus" delivers a modern parable on the foolishness and intolerance characteristic of both critics and defenders of controversial artwork --- such as the portrait of the crucified Christ created from thousands of tiny nipples cut from porno magazines featured in Hornby's story. A long overdue smack in the face for the laughably ignorant censors, scarily religious zealots, controversy pandering artists, and free-speech soapboxers, "Nipple Jesus" should be required reading for those people waiting in line to gawk at the next "sensation" exhibit.

I would say this is a work of art. And the press ensured it's a rather successful piece at that, in that it's generating the sort of talk she was hoping it would, and then some. The presentation isn't to my liking. Again, I'm more interested in the story and the discussion in this thread. If I were reading a short story about an artist who did this, I'd probably enjoy the read. I have no desire to see the work, faked or real. Maybe 20 years from now she'll be featured in yet another feminist art exhibition that bores me to tears.

But that's a rant for another day.

Regarding the Nazi lampshade reference, I say that artwork should come with a tag that says, "No one (excepting the artist perhaps) was harmed during the making of this." So long as you aren't hurting anyone, fine. Hurting yourself? That's your business. Murdering someone and wearing their face as a mask? Bad form. Art? Maybe. Criminal, most definitely. Of course, if this girl really did get herself pregnant with the intention of miscarrying, some will argue that is harming someone else. I don't particularly agree with that argument.

HBO's Tales From the Crypt series has an AWESOME episode starring Tim Roth about someone who murders for his art. Excellent stuff. Most excellent.

Graffiti (art/not art) is always an interesting discussion. Some of it is very beautiful. In fact, some of it even beautifies (an ugly abandoned storefront, etc.). But a lot of the time it's just defacement of public property, and beautiful or not, it makes me sad to see it sometimes.

[Not Afraid]

I appreciate all art. I may not like it, but that's not the point. If it makes me think, if it causes discussion, if it creates an emotional reaction for me or others, it's probably good art.

I think many people come to art from a consumer culture point of view. "I wouldn't buy that or hang it in my living room" doesn't make something art. It makes it a consumable good, but art is not necessarily consumable.

I agree with AH about conceptual art. I ADORE conceptual pieces in their conceptual form often more often than I enjoy them in their fully realized form.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I think many people come to art from a consumer culture point of view. "I wouldn't buy that or hang it in my living room" doesn't make something art. It makes it a consumable good, but art is not necessarily consumable.



Very good point. And I don't undervalue that, either. Because there is a lot of art I appreciate but wouldn't hang on my wall. There is a lot of contemporary pop illustrators right now that I LOVE, and theirwork is very much a commodity. The size of the work and the price are very reasonable, and though an intent to create a purchasable good may not be the only or primary reason for the piece's existence, it certainly was a factor. And a lot of this work really is lovely, amusing, beautiful, etc.

Of course, I say this and have a velvet painting of a crying kid hanging up in my bedroom. I would, of course, prefer to have a Mark Ryden... And he would very likely want MY velvet painting...

Also, three huge cheers for H for starting the OP. HUZZAH!

[Strangler Lewis]

I appreciate all art. I may not like it, but that's not the point. If it makes me think, if it causes discussion, if it creates an emotional reaction for me or others, it's probably good art.


"Art" is just a subset of human expression. Do you appreciate all conversation? If you're in the middle of a mundane conversation or reading a book on a bus and someone interrupts with something provocative, shocking and phenomenally stupid, do you value their contribution? Do you go, "Wow, thank you for jarring me out of my routine?"

[Not Afraid]

"Art" is just a subset of human expression. Do you appreciate all conversation? If you're in the middle of a mundane conversation or reading a book on a bus and someone interrupts with something provocative, shocking and phenomenally stupid, do you value their contribution? Do you go, "Wow, thank you for jarring me out of my routine?"

Depends on my mood and how "routine" I want to be. There are times I have no desire to be engaged. I would rather drool into a mindless magazine instead.

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmm - so many tings to comment on...

Art and human remains - age old tradition from shrunken heads to reliquaries. A favorite contemporary artist of mine, Eric Orr - kept viles of blood (his own) in his fridge for use in his paintings (along with bone fragments). Heck, I recall that Kiss at one point had a comic book of which one edition contained ink mixes with drops of their blood. Oh and what about the preserved skin of certain tattooed Sumo Wrestlers?

On the other side of this equation I can't but think of body wars, which almost painfully tried to defend itself as an "educational" endevour, when anyone who's seen it can't help but think sometimes it's the aesthetic and not scientific which drove the work.

Art and Morality - I tend to view art as Amoral, so yeah Art can be evil, boring, or erotic and still be art. Triumph of the will is a beautiful film regardless of it's promotion of Nazism.

Conceptual Art remaining a concept - There are some conceptual pieces that I think have to be done - if for no other reason that to break down the filter of, "but no body would really do that" - So Chris Burdon shooting himself in the Arm, yeah it's an interesting concept, but making it a reality and providing the artifacts of the event force you to confront it in ways beyond intellectual musing. I guess a good lie can work and may speak to the aesthetic nature of truth - but the example in the OP the lie diminishes the original outrage that I presume was intended.

Art and Outrage - I think many a novice artists seeks outrage as a way gain attention for their willingness to break boundaries, but honestly breaking boundaries for breaking boundaries sake is often just boring.

Art and Communication - I think in some ways art is a subset of communication but it's something that can be apprehended on many levels. I love whimsical art, so often that requires some intellectual engagement beyond offering something "pretty" But often art is intended to strike people on emotional levels - love, hate, outrage, etc. sometimes I can enjoy this kind of work as well, for the way it makes me feel.

Art vs. Craft - I really don't distinguish the two, rather craft seems to dennote a certain expertise in a certain skill or work in a certain media. I think in the past certain arts have been denigrated with the term "craft" (quilting & sewing being a good feminist example) - In this respect, craft is often used to acknowledge a good technician who may not have a greater vision (Usually associated with "High" Art).

Whew, but I always enjoy talking about art.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Art and Outrage - I think many a novice artists seeks outrage as a way gain attention for their willingness to break boundaries, but honestly breaking boundaries for breaking boundaries sake is often just boring.Which was my reaction to the OP story. The point is ostensibly to engender conversation, but my feeling when it's so obvious that the artist them self hasn't even considered the implications thoroughly (which I believe is the case in the OP), then my general response is, "Well, then why should I care if you don't?" Unfair, perhaps, but I just am not interested in giving that person the attention they're seeking.


Art vs. Craft - I really don't distinguish the two, rather craft seems to dennote a certain expertise in a certain skill or work in a certain media. I think in the past certain arts have been denigrated with the term "craft" (quilting & sewing being a good feminist example) - In this respect, craft is often used to acknowledge a good technician who may not have a greater vision (Usually associated with "High" Art).It's not a clearly defined line in the least, but as a generalization where there is a difference, I consider craft to be more about a repeatable product (or class of products) with emphasis on aesthetics, while art denotes a creative act more focused on conveying some level of meaning. That said, just because something is a craft, I wouldn't automatically disqualify it as art. The two can, and do, intersect.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Which was my reaction to the OP story. The point is ostensibly to engender conversation, but my feeling when it's so obvious that the artist them self hasn't even considered the implications thoroughly (which I believe is the case in the OP), then my general response is, "Well, then why should I care if you don't?" Unfair, perhaps, but I just am not interested in giving that person the attention they're seeking.

This was my reaction to the OP as well. I haven't actually said much about it, because, like EH, I prefer the discussion of general concept to this particular concept itself. So in that sense, I appreciate the work - it spurred this interesting conversation. But in terms of my immediate reaction to the piece, and from what I've read of her responses, it seemed rather hollow and meant to seek attention. And less than thoroughly thought-through; otherwise, the waffling about meaning and purpose wouldn't have been quite so waffly. So, to me? Art in the sense that it's provoking discussion. But that discussion (ours, anyway) is not the discussion I think she was hoping to provoke.

[€uroMeinke]

Of course, sometimes I think it a mistake to presume an artist fully understands the impact or sometimes even meaning of their work as most art can be grasped in so many complex contexts. Many an "outrageous" work has turned mainstream over time. (e.g. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Jackson Pollock's "drip" paintings, Duchamp's "ready-mades," Godard's jumpy editing, etc,)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Of course, sometimes I think it a mistake to presume an artist fully understands the impact or sometimes even meaning of their work as most art can be grasped in so many complex contexts. I don't require fulling grasping the meaning or impact, and actually anything really interesting shouldn't be fully understood by the artist. Much more interesting when they're grapling with the concepts as much as the audience. However, it'd be nice if the artist demonstrated SOME level of understanding and that they've put some thought into it before just throwing it out there to get attention. It's the mounting evidence that the OP artist gave zero thought beyond the initial shock value that discounts it for me.

[3894]

I don't require fulling grasping the meaning or impact, and actually anything really interesting shouldn't be fully understood by the artist.

Then you get into the realm of reception. What the work signifies to the artist may not be what it signifies to you, may not be what it signifies to me, and so on and so on and scooby doo be do be (oooo cha cha).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Then you get into the realm of reception. What the work signifies to the artist may not be what it signifies to you, may not be what it signifies to me, and so on and so on and scooby doo be do be (oooo cha cha).
Certainly. But as long as the work signifies something to the artist, whether I agree with it or find something more (or less), it gets from me more respect than when they fail to demonstrate that it means anything to them beyond surface shock value.

Not that every piece of art has to have great meaning behind it. Lord knows I'm as big a fan of aesthetic graphic art as anybody. But when you're doing something in the realm of a complex subject matter, and especially when it's pretty obvious that you're coming up with something where the best anyone's going to say about it is, "At least it's engendering a conversation," you'd better, to keep my attention, do something that shows that you're a participant in the conversation, not just an attention-seeker.

[€uroMeinke]

I sort of agree, but having not seen the work, or engaging the artist, all I know is what's been filtered to me through the media - which has it's own self-serving distortion when it comes to things outrageous.