Art Project Options

[rnicron]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/y...ly_n_97194.html

Discuss.

[Elba]

Well, this is kind of confusing. She is saying that it is real, but Yale is saying that she is lying.

[superstitious]

I'm a little confused. The Yale spokeswoman said:

Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.

yet -

...lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Shvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

So how exactly are the acts not real?

Unless I missed something.

edit: haha, Elba just pretty much said the same thing.

[Elba]

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages. I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity. From the 9th to the 15th day of my menstrual cycle, the fabricators would provide me with sperm samples, which I used to privately self-inseminate. Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding.

To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used. Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original.

This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body. The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse.

It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership. An intentional ambiguity pervades both the act and the objects I produced in relation to it. The performance exists only as I chose to represent it. For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.

This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming — the act of ascribing a word to something physical — is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term “miscarriage” or “period” to that blood.

In some sense, neither term is exactly accurate or inaccurate; the ambiguity is not merely a matter of context, but is embodied in the physicality of the object. This central ambiguity defies a clear definition of the act. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming — an authorial act.

It is the intention of this piece to destabilize the locus of that authorial act, and in doing so, reclaim it from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it.

As an intervention into our normative understanding of “the real” and its accompanying politics of convention, this performance piece has numerous conceptual goals. The first is to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are “meant” to do from their physical capability. The myth that a certain set of functions are “natural” (while all the other potential functions are “unnatural”) undermines that sense of capability, confining lifestyle choices to the bounds of normatively defined narratives.

Just as it is a myth that women are “meant” to be feminine and men masculine, that penises and vaginas are “meant” for penetrative heterosexual sex (or that mouths, anuses, breasts, feet or leather, silicone, vinyl, rubber, or metal implements are not “meant” for sex at all), it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are “meant” to birth a child.

When considering my own bodily form, I recognize its potential as extending beyond its ability to participate in a normative function. While my organs are capable of engaging with the narrative of reproduction — the time-based linkage of discrete events from conception to birth — the realm of capability extends beyond the bounds of that specific narrative chain. These organs can do other things, can have other purposes, and it is the prerogative of every individual to acknowledge and explore this wide realm of capability."

[Elba]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/1...tion-artist/?hp

Aliza Shvarts’s abortion art project sparked waves of outrage on Thursday before the university announced that “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.”
But Ms. Shvarts is not playing along. She told The Yale Daily News that her project “did not consist of certainties” like medical tests to prove whether she was pregnant before she took “abortifacient herbs.” In reply, Yale released another statement to the newspaper saying that she’s determined never to reveal the hoax, as it would compromise her work:

[A Yale spokeswoman] told the News that Shvarts had vowed that if the University revealed her admission, “she would deny it.”
“Her denial is part of her performance,” Klasky wrote in an e-mail message. “We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.”

Yale is saying that it's false, but she is saying that it isn't, so who knows.

[superstitious]

I'll read what you posted (the long one) when I get home, but on the surface it seems like Yale is merely saving face.

[Melissa]

^ Well, I highly doubt that Yale would allow such a project to take place and I'm assuming most art students are supposed to work closely with a professor, ... I don't know, so either she's lying or she didn't tell the facility what she was really doing.

[queen]

there's an inconsistency in the stories because they could have technically not been miscarriages at all, assuming her story to be the truth:

Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.

superstitious is correct; i think yale was trying to save face. the artist wanted to make sure the truth was out.

if this really all is just a "performance", it's mediocre at best. it's just causing confusion and controversy in something that's not worthy of it.

[illriginal]

there's an inconsistency in the stories because they could have technically not been miscarriages at all, assuming her story to be the truth:

superstitious is correct; i think yale was trying to save face. the artist wanted to make sure the truth was out.

if this really all is just a "performance", it's mediocre at best. it's just causing confusion and controversy in something that's not worthy of it.

as long as you keep sayin "think" then you're not gettin anywhere, this story sucks now =\
one story says it's true, then the girl admits it's true, then another story shows it's not true, then yale claims it's not true.. for f**k sake.

[queen]

^ is it because you don't like to assume that the artists' story is either true or false? if the story were true, would you be more inclined to discuss it? i don't understand how her denial or admission in the matter affects the point of interest.

and it's only because of that inconsistency that i state "i think". i wouldn't outright claim something unless i know it or believe it 100% to be true.

[illriginal]

the story keeps flip-flopping it's stupid now.

[queen]

yah, that is annoying.

i'm still discussing it as if her version is the truth. 'cause that's the only way there would be a discussion ;o

[illriginal]

yah, that is annoying.

i'm still discussing it as if her version is the truth. 'cause that's the only way there would be a discussion ;o

lol i understand, sorry for being a negative prick

[Elba]

Why don't you just stop being a negative prick, as*hole. Maybe if you laid off the steroids, you'd stop being such a dick.

[illriginal]

Why don't you just stop being a negative prick, as*hole. Maybe if you laid off the steroids, you'd stop being such a dick.

Wow that's sad... you went to flaming. Isn't there a rule about flaming people? Maybe Elba should receive a warning. Or a tan... and not use two different usernames as well... Melie.

[Elba]

How is that sad? Are you sad, also, for calling Spencer ugly? I just said you were an a-hole. I'm sure you took it as a compliment anyway.

[superstitious]

yah, that is annoying.

i'm still discussing it as if her version is the truth. 'cause that's the only way there would be a discussion ;o

I think it's a good discussion, even if she isn't telling the truth. Of course, if the following is true: “Her denial is part of her performance,” Klasky wrote in an e-mail message. “We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art," then the entire thing is absurd. I mean, who does she think she is, Andy Kaufman or something?

So she embraces her inner masochism just to to prove that people who see something come to subjective conclusions and observations. It's hardly avant garde subject matter. She's getting what she wants, attention. Of course, that would be my subjective conclusion/observation.

Contrary to my initial reaction, I'm not sure if Yale is trying to save face or not. I think that they don't know what to say.

[Melissa]

Wow that's sad... you went to flaming. Isn't there a rule about flaming people? Maybe Elba should receive a warning. Or a tan... and not use two different usernames as well... Melie.

Elba's not Melie, dude.
She's much cooler.

[illriginal]

Elba's not Melie, dude.
She's much cooler.

Right.

How is that sad? Are you sad, also, for calling Spencer ugly? I just said you were an a-hole. I'm sure you took it as a compliment anyway.

Eye for an eye.... spencer was ridin my cock... and I fired back. You on the other hand fired off beyond necessity, by the way, you're the a-hole actually a bitch and a stuck up one as well. Just because I don't kiss your ass like the rest of these teeny boppers doesn't mean I'm an a-hole, it just means they're stupid as f**k.

/rant

have a good weekend.

[superstitious]

For pete's sake. Can't we have a friggin topic without people getting into arguments?

Tama, just keep it to the topic, PLEASE. Pretty please?

[queen]

I think it's a good discussion, even if she isn't telling the truth. Of course, if the following is true: “Her denial is part of her performance,” Klasky wrote in an e-mail message. “We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art," then the entire thing is absurd. I mean, who does she think she is, Andy Kaufman or something?

So she embraces her inner masochism just to to prove that people who see something come to subjective conclusions and observations. It's hardly avant garde subject matter. She's getting what she wants, attention. Of course, that would be my subjective conclusion/observation.

Contrary to my initial reaction, I'm not sure if Yale is trying to save face or not. I think that they don't know what to say.

that's another way to look at things. i guess i simply ignored the condition if it were false, because i wouldn't have a problem with her artwork, whatever the interpretation is. artists aspire for recognition, so if that's really what she wants, it's what she's getting

[rnicron]

Right.
Eye for an eye.... spencer was ridin my cock... and I fired back. You on the other hand fired off beyond necessity, by the way, you're the a-hole actually a bitch and a stuck up one as well. Just because I don't kiss your ass like the rest of these teeny boppers doesn't mean I'm an a-hole, it just means they're stupid as f**k.

/rant

have a good weekend.

Stay the fuck out of my topic.

Good day.

[markmejia]

I don't get it. What does art have to do with miscarriages ..

[mipadi]

Aside from the fact that this incident is clearly gross, I'm reluctant to call the exhibit "art".

While I come from a family of artists, and I'm a writer myself, my background is more traditionalist, and so maybe I'm just not "hip" enough to know good modern art when I see it. However, I stick by my claim that this is not art. :)

I don't know if there's an official definition of art, but here's my basic criteria: 1) first and foremost, art should express the creativity or thoughts of the artist; 2) good art should convey some sort of message -- hopefully clearly and thoughtfully, but at least convey some message (without requiring an immense amount of background knowledge or exposition); and 3) art should be aesthetically pleasing, be it in a visual, musical, or other manner.

Good art doesn't have to fulfill all of the above criteria per se, in some circumstances.

However, I don't feel this case is one of those circumstances. This piece was clearly made for shock value, and so the artist could get a lot of attention. Any message the artist may have intended is being lost in the shock of the piece.

A lot of young artists often mistake "talking about the art" for "talking about the message behind the art". Good art provokes discussion of the second time; art fails when people become so wrapped up in the mechanics of the art that they don't even talk about the message. Take this case, for example; everyone's talking about what the artist did, not why, and her message is getting lost in the glare of the media. Which means her "art" is a failure.

Secondly, a lot of artists seem to go merely for shock value. Let me elaborate. Any artist likely has a million or so ideas for a piece -- many of which never see the light of day. In the heyday of my writing hobby, I had a good idea for a character, or scene, or setting almost everyday. The problem is, a lot of them never materialized into anything usable. They were merely a glimmer. They were good ideas and had cool connections to worthwhile concepts, but they just weren't moldable into an actual piece of literature. I'm not a visual artist, but I'm guessing a painter, or even a dancer or musician, has similar experiences.

The point I'm making is that, while an idea might be good, its execution might be bad. I think once upon a time, when artists were just people who painted or sculpted or wrote symphonies, this limitation was central to their creativity -- even a good idea can't always turn into a work of art.

But in the age of mass media, sensationalist art exhibits often make headlines, even if their execution is bad.

What's my point? Well, perhaps this girl had a good idea; but she didn't really bother to think it through and try to actually execute the idea in any sort of "artistic" manner. I have no doubt she thought, "What will get me on the front page of the newspaper/social news networking websites?" So she did the grossest thing she could think of, without really trying to mold the idea into anything remote artistic.

So my take is that, assuming what she claims is true, she's a failure as an artist, and this idea was just stupid -- and certainly not art. (It also seems to be dangerous from a point of view of health, but that's a different story. I also agree with the criticism that she trivializes the very serious topics of abortion and miscarriage, but that's another discussion, too.)

[S-Majere]

I don't get it. What does art have to do with miscarriages ..

The same sort of thing as when artists slice up cows and their calves and seal the bits in perspex. Or go for walks around an art gallery dressed as a giant bear. Wasn't there also one that was a load of cardboard boxes stacked up in a room? Mad stuff but it must mean something....right?