erynthered Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Un!@#$ing believable!! http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513 <H1>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. </H1> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 There are some sick !@#$s in this world! Next thing we'll hear is that she'll get some type of federal endowment for her 'artwork'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 There are some sick !@#$s in this world! Next thing we'll hear is that she'll get some type of federal endowment for her 'artwork'. True... Some sick people in this world... On the subject of money, if the majority of the people don't find it offensive, what is the minority that find it offensive to do? I guess they have to go eat a bowl of phuck and foot the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 WATCH EVERYONE SQUIRM! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 That is the most disgusting thing I have ever read, and that's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 That is the most disgusting thing I have ever read, and that's saying something. I would suspect quite a few around here support what she did. I saw what my wife went though having a miscarriage. And this !@#$ does it for art? Numerous times? May she die a horrible horrible death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yuk. And if people want to see that sh-- just go to a RTL rally, they wave those nasty photos all over the place. This isn't art and giving this dingbat any attention, even bad, is just what she wants. Mom always said ignore it and it'll go away, and it usually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 WATCH EVERYONE SQUIRM! lol lol wut a jackass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Anyone that thinks this is art needs his head checked. Wtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Anyone that thinks this is art needs his head checked. Wtf. It's "art" in the broad sense that it "evokes an emotional reaction in the viewer". Personally, I think the broad sense is crap. And personally, I think that "art" such as this doesn't cause people to "explore the topic", as this "artist" seems to think. Rather, this display will cause people to explore the artist, in the sense that everyone will be asking "What the !@#$ is wrong with this chick?" So even if you were to stipulate that it's somehow art, it would be really really bad art, since its form distracts from its content and puts the focus on the artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I would suspect quite a few around here support what she did. I saw what my wife went though having a miscarriage. And this !@#$ does it for art? Numerous times? May she die a horrible horrible death. My wife had three (miscarriages). Who cares how she (this woman) abuses HER body in the name of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's "art" in the broad sense that it "evokes an emotional reaction in the viewer". Personally, I think the broad sense is crap. And personally, I think that "art" such as this doesn't cause people to "explore the topic", as this "artist" seems to think. Rather, this display will cause people to explore the artist, in the sense that everyone will be asking "What the !@#$ is wrong with this chick?" So even if you were to stipulate that it's somehow art, it would be really really bad art, since its form distracts from its content and puts the focus on the artist. Totally agree. Obviously it has worked on Eryn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 Who cares how she (this woman) abuses HER body in the name of art. I dont really care about her body either. I care more about those unborn that she decided to kill in the name of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 So even if you were to stipulate that it's somehow art, it would be really really bad art, since its form distracts from its content and puts the focus on the artist. Like just about everything else in society these days, I suspect that is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 Totally agree. Obviously it has worked on Eryn... Yep killing the unborn for sport does "evoke an emotional reaction in the viewer/me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I dont really care about her body either. I care more about those unborn that she decided to kill in the name of art. There will be plenty more popping out from others. I'm conflicted on this. I think she has the right to do it, but I think thatsociety has the right to label her a jackass and drive her to suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's "art" in the broad sense that it "evokes an emotional reaction in the viewer". Personally, I think the broad sense is crap. And personally, I think that "art" such as this doesn't cause people to "explore the topic", as this "artist" seems to think. Rather, this display will cause people to explore the artist, in the sense that everyone will be asking "What the !@#$ is wrong with this chick?" So even if you were to stipulate that it's somehow art, it would be really really bad art, since its form distracts from its content and puts the focus on the artist. lots of things evoke an emotional reaction in the viewer but that doesn't make it art. this is right up there with those freddy kruger movies...which are only marginally better because they were fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's "art" in the broad sense that it "evokes an emotional reaction in the viewer". Personally, I think the broad sense is crap. And personally, I think that "art" such as this doesn't cause people to "explore the topic", as this "artist" seems to think. Rather, this display will cause people to explore the artist, in the sense that everyone will be asking "What the !@#$ is wrong with this chick?" So even if you were to stipulate that it's somehow art, it would be really really bad art, since its form distracts from its content and puts the focus on the artist. lots of things evoke an emotional reaction in the viewer but that doesn't make it art. this is right up there with those freddy kruger movies...which are only marginally better because they were fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Yep killing the unborn for sport does "evoke an emotional reaction in the viewer/me" Rephrase that... Unborn for you and me... She might disagree. I am openminded enough to leave the phuck alone and don't draw any attention to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 lots of things evoke an emotional reaction in the viewer but that doesn't make it art. Like I said, I think the definition is crap...but that is the definition a lot of so-called "artists" apply to their work. I would not be surprised if, in this particular case, she was taught the definition by one of her professors. this is right up there with those freddy kruger movies...which are only marginally better because they were fake. Actually, I'd put A Nightmare On Elm Street on a much higher plane. Wes Craven at the very least attempted to investigate themes surrounding fear and nightmares in his movie. Or consider Jaws, relatively gruesome for its time, but as an example of filmmaking craft and storytelling it was undeniably artistic. Blood and gore, in and of itself, isn't inherently unartistic...it only becomes so when it serves no point other than to shock, as in this display. Art can be shocking...but "shock" is not necessarily "art". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts