|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:40 am
During the Yale Student Abortion controversy, by grad student Aliza Shvarts, I must admit that I was not as interested as I should have been at the time. It seems that the controversy surrounding the issue was huge. What was larger were the reactions and the surprising truth that they were all almost the same. People were angry. http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/comments/24513 Is the link to the article stub and the 342 comments to follow. This is off Yale's own acclaimed Newspaper website. You can imagine many of the comments were made by Yale students. But regardless, reading through them they all express shock and discontent at the fact that Shvarts' project went through, and they were angered at what it had taken in the process. Among this list of grieving spectators were many pro-choicers. Even where someone did not express their position it is only fair to assume they were there. Choicers, after all, roughly make up half the issue in most polls taken, if not a little over half. But what gives! How could a choicer be aghast at this? Is it really so surprising that someone would actually go ahead and do this? And how many miscarriage do you think Ms. Shvarts obtained? I'm willing to put a guess in the ballpark of around eight. I'm also willing to go as far to say that there are other women who have had far more legitimate abortions who have blown past that number. My point? If it's her body, why the shock, why the outrage? If they are merely pieces of tissue, where are the victims, why are we angry? And if Ms. Shvarts has walked out of this issue unscathed, why the tears? Shouldn't we be happy for a woman unscathed by the "sad reality" of abortion? Oh I think so. It's a contradiction really. But it's one of hope. It demonstrates to us that they are not all as For-Choice as they say they are. More importantly, it demonstrates to us that their side is not without limits. There are some things people do not do, so they say, and Shvarts has done that. But it's just her choice, right Choicers? Right?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:31 am
I am a bit confused. What is she trying to prove?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:36 am
ryokomayuka I am a bit confused. What is she trying to prove? Ms. Shvarts? Wanted to open up the topic of abortion and I suppose have it viewed as a performance medium. I do not believe she was making a political statement. I'm guessing she's pro-choice though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:56 pm
I'm going to put a guess at about 0. She artificially inseminated herself with the help of male friends, then took pills on the 28th day of her cycle, and bled soon after, once a month? Wow, a woman bleeds for a period of time once a month. That's so shocking and surprising. I think that realistically, she never managed to impregnate herself in the first place.
But yeah, a lot of choicers in feminist websites were appalled, and were admonished by other choicers. I was sort of surprised but it took awhile for someone to bring up the health issue of impregnating yourself repeatedly and inducing abortions using abortifacient drugs, or the health issue raised by using human blood from either miscarriages or periods in an art project displayed where tons of people will come near it.
As to the purpose?
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts declared. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
I really think she just wanted a wiki page all to herself, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:57 pm
I don't know why that is even allowed. That can't be good for your body and it sounds so distastful.
An as Lymelady said, there is a possibility that she didn't manage to to impregnate herself. It can take a few tries just for one pregnancy and if she did everything herself and took pills 28 days later, chances are she might even know if she was actually pregnant or not.
Her body, her choice, I thought that is what they wanted? I guess every side has limits to choice and no choice goes without some consequence, risk, or effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:50 pm
lymelady I'm going to put a guess at about 0. She artificially inseminated herself with the help of male friends, then took pills on the 28th day of her cycle, and bled soon after, once a month? Wow, a woman bleeds for a period of time once a month. That's so shocking and surprising. I think that realistically, she never managed to impregnate herself in the first place. But yeah, a lot of choicers in feminist websites were appalled, and were admonished by other choicers. I was sort of surprised but it took awhile for someone to bring up the health issue of impregnating yourself repeatedly and inducing abortions using abortifacient drugs, or the health issue raised by using human blood from either miscarriages or periods in an art project displayed where tons of people will come near it. As to the purpose? "I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts declared. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be." I really think she just wanted a wiki page all to herself, though. That's slightly unfair to say. It's possible to utilize something in your art that you know is a shocking symbol, but you don't do it for the shock value. In much the same way, we'll say, a soldier gets his hands on a powerful weapon and can barely control it, an artist too wishes to utilize strong symbols and play around with ideas that are above and beyond him. Or her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:24 pm
I'm not even sure she tried to get pregnant to begin with. Why risk it?
And I also think that this is just another bullshit artist "pushing the envelope" because it's shocking, and it gets attention, and then calling it "art."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:47 pm
kp is dcvi lymelady I'm going to put a guess at about 0. She artificially inseminated herself with the help of male friends, then took pills on the 28th day of her cycle, and bled soon after, once a month? Wow, a woman bleeds for a period of time once a month. That's so shocking and surprising. I think that realistically, she never managed to impregnate herself in the first place. But yeah, a lot of choicers in feminist websites were appalled, and were admonished by other choicers. I was sort of surprised but it took awhile for someone to bring up the health issue of impregnating yourself repeatedly and inducing abortions using abortifacient drugs, or the health issue raised by using human blood from either miscarriages or periods in an art project displayed where tons of people will come near it. As to the purpose? "I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts declared. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be." I really think she just wanted a wiki page all to herself, though. That's slightly unfair to say. It's possible to utilize something in your art that you know is a shocking symbol, but you don't do it for the shock value. In much the same way, we'll say, a soldier gets his hands on a powerful weapon and can barely control it, an artist too wishes to utilize strong symbols and play around with ideas that are above and beyond him. Or her. It's unfair to say what exactly? That she probably didn't get pregnant? The quote from her own lips? I was kidding about the wiki, my dear, though if she didn't know it would get so much attention, then she's a fool and quite frankly she wanted attention for her art. She succeeded. And seriously, I don't find much hope in it. I already know that most people for abortion are not in it because they like abortions but because they feel women need abortions. There's still a large enough group of people to raise my eyebrows at that said she did a good job with her project, especially when she explained it. Maybe it gives me hope for NARAL, but only about a .2% increase, bringing my hope for NARAL up to .2%. Edit: My apologies to NARAL! I had forgotten about their support for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. .7% Guys, my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
lymelady kp is dcvi lymelady I'm going to put a guess at about 0. She artificially inseminated herself with the help of male friends, then took pills on the 28th day of her cycle, and bled soon after, once a month? Wow, a woman bleeds for a period of time once a month. That's so shocking and surprising. I think that realistically, she never managed to impregnate herself in the first place. But yeah, a lot of choicers in feminist websites were appalled, and were admonished by other choicers. I was sort of surprised but it took awhile for someone to bring up the health issue of impregnating yourself repeatedly and inducing abortions using abortifacient drugs, or the health issue raised by using human blood from either miscarriages or periods in an art project displayed where tons of people will come near it. As to the purpose? "I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts declared. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be." I really think she just wanted a wiki page all to herself, though. That's slightly unfair to say. It's possible to utilize something in your art that you know is a shocking symbol, but you don't do it for the shock value. In much the same way, we'll say, a soldier gets his hands on a powerful weapon and can barely control it, an artist too wishes to utilize strong symbols and play around with ideas that are above and beyond him. Or her. It's unfair to say what exactly? That she probably didn't get pregnant? The quote from her own lips? I was kidding about the wiki, my dear, though if she didn't know it would get so much attention, then she's a fool and quite frankly she wanted attention for her art. She succeeded. And seriously, I don't find much hope in it. I already know that most people for abortion are not in it because they like abortions but because they feel women need abortions. There's still a large enough group of people to raise my eyebrows at that said she did a good job with her project, especially when she explained it. Maybe it gives me hope for NARAL, but only about a .2% increase, bringing my hope for NARAL up to .2%. Edit: My apologies to NARAL! I had forgotten about their support for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. .7% Guys, my bad. The Wikipedia Article. Which she did get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:15 pm
I.Am I'm not even sure she tried to get pregnant to begin with. Why risk it? And I also think that this is just another bullshit artist "pushing the envelope" because it's shocking, and it gets attention, and then calling it "art." That's really the whole point of art. We artists wish to make a visual image that is so moving, it almost hits as a whirlwind to the viewer. Luckily, with cinematography we don't actually need to do anything like Ms. Shvarts and we can like, y'know, fake abortions, and stuff. But every now and then, someone likes their Chicken real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:21 pm
With what she did, she could've faked it too. Seriously. She was just lazy and didn't have enough creativity. Either that or it was shock value.
Just as a man ejaculating into a cup, splashing it across canvas, reading some meaning into it and calling it art is lazy and not artistic, so is what Ms. Shvarts did, and the sad part is she doesn't even realize it.
I know she got a wiki article. Or rather, the incident got the article. She also got an ED article; I much prefer it to the wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:23 pm
kp is dcvi I.Am I'm not even sure she tried to get pregnant to begin with. Why risk it? And I also think that this is just another bullshit artist "pushing the envelope" because it's shocking, and it gets attention, and then calling it "art." That's really the whole point of art. We artists wish to make a visual image that is so moving, it almost hits as a whirlwind to the viewer. Luckily, with cinematography we don't actually need to do anything like Ms. Shvarts and we can like, y'know, fake abortions, and stuff. But every now and then, someone likes their Chicken real. Okay, no. Nonono. First of all, don't say "We artists" like you're speaking for all of us. Yeah, I like to stir emotions in people; But really, -my- main thing is stirring the mind, and the imagination. Making people think, make them feel the story. Second of all, you're limiting what is "art" to a very small part of art; Yeah, the really great stuff is supposed to stir emotions, open the mind, yadda yadda. But there is also art that simply wants to portray what is seen really well. And even in that part of art, there is a major difference between Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and this bullshit shock-art. Shock art is not real art. Shock art is wannabes "stirring emotions" simply by doing something that shocks people. It takes no effort. It takes no skill or talent. You just take something, say abortion or 9/11, that still shocks people, and do something with it that shocks or disgusts people. It doesn't evoke an emotion because of how it was done, because of any skill on the artist's part, it merely evokes emotion because of what it is. It's an insult to great artists to call this filth art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:14 pm
lymelady With what she did, she could've faked it too. Seriously. She was just lazy and didn't have enough creativity. Either that or it was shock value. Just as a man ejaculating into a cup, splashing it across canvas, reading some meaning into it and calling it art is lazy and not artistic, so is what Ms. Shvarts did, and the sad part is she doesn't even realize it. I know she got a wiki article. Or rather, the incident got the article. She also got an ED article; I much prefer it to the wiki. We don't know if she faked it. She went on press to say she didn't, but Yale did, calling it "Performance Art". Anyway: I don't think it's fair to call it lazy. As an aspiring-Designer, there are times when I attempt to conceive a logo or have helped friends to make one and I basically... type out their company name, and pick a nice font. That's it. Some people are like "WTF?!ART?!" but yes, it is. An artist is able to see when enough is enough. The 'Abercrombie & Fitch Logo' with that sexy sans-font? The American Eagle Logo with its high leading? The Armani Logo, just an A, a vertical bar, and an X? You need to have good visual language skills to look at that and be confident at it. Shvarts' project may seem simple, but that may be part of the beauty of it (separating the fact from what she actually did).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:17 pm
I.Am kp is dcvi I.Am I'm not even sure she tried to get pregnant to begin with. Why risk it? And I also think that this is just another bullshit artist "pushing the envelope" because it's shocking, and it gets attention, and then calling it "art." That's really the whole point of art. We artists wish to make a visual image that is so moving, it almost hits as a whirlwind to the viewer. Luckily, with cinematography we don't actually need to do anything like Ms. Shvarts and we can like, y'know, fake abortions, and stuff. But every now and then, someone likes their Chicken real. Okay, no. Nonono. First of all, don't say "We artists" like you're speaking for all of us. Yeah, I like to stir emotions in people; But really, -my- main thing is stirring the mind, and the imagination. Making people think, make them feel the story. Second of all, you're limiting what is "art" to a very small part of art; Yeah, the really great stuff is supposed to stir emotions, open the mind, yadda yadda. But there is also art that simply wants to portray what is seen really well. And even in that part of art, there is a major difference between Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and this bullshit shock-art. Shock art is not real art. Shock art is wannabes "stirring emotions" simply by doing something that shocks people. It takes no effort. It takes no skill or talent. You just take something, say abortion or 9/11, that still shocks people, and do something with it that shocks or disgusts people. It doesn't evoke an emotion because of how it was done, because of any skill on the artist's part, it merely evokes emotion because of what it is. It's an insult to great artists to call this filth art. I mean this when I say it: All good art is shock art. It's shock art because if it's good art, it will draw the breath right out of your lungs. That is the "shock" to which I am referring to. You don't need to like starve dogs or draw decapitated Pikachu's (you could, I guess...), but ultimately, the best kind of art is art that really is so powerful in its execution and delivery, the power is felt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:57 pm
I honestly think it was all for attention. I think a lot of "shock art" is just that. I understand using your skills to make a statement - no matter how unpopular their views are.
But MY GOD! burning_eyes This crap isn't art. It's crap. Disgusting mutilation and a desperate cry for help, I believe. I honestly don't understand what the hell her "statement" could be here. I think she wanted to piss people off and get famous.
There was an incident a while back where a South American man made an "art exhibit" out of starving a dog to death. What a bunch of crap. Slavery and cruelty - the same thing can be applied here if she did, indeed, manage to have even one abortion. (I refuse to call it a miscarriage since it did not happen from natural causes) Even if she didn't, this project is a biohazard and a slap in the face to any self-respecting woman on either side of the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
