Eww.
Okay, now I've heard everything. Check out this article on a Yale senior art student:
"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."
8 comments:
What the Hell?? Why?
Why would you want to put your body through that? The hormone changes alone would not be worth it plus the extreme cramping that accompanies having a miscarriage.
Also: with that many "abortions", isn't she kind of screwing up her body if she wants to have children in the future. Although many will argue that perhaps she shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Maybe it's because I'm preggers but this "art" is appalling to me, on many different levels.
Nah, I don't think it's because you're pregnant, B; I think you feel that way b/c you're NOT CRAZY.
That woman is obviously disturbed. Very disturbed. The sickest part? She got school credit for her "project." WTF?
Well, we can all sleep a little sounder now that Yale has issued a press release that the art project is not real. http://www.yale.edu/opa/
However, it's simulated "performance art" about the ambiguity of a woman's body or some such bullshite.
Still think this lady's crazy.
The university asked the artist to say her piece was "fiction;" however, she's released a statement saying it was not. I'm confused.
Feministing has a good summary post.
Thanks for the feministing link. I agree with a lot of people in the comments section: real or not, it's more about the shock value than the supposed "art". I didn't feel very convinced reading her letter about form and purpose (she explores the idea that the body can be used more for its intended purpose). I haven't seen my ovaries do a lot more than release eggs, lady!
My ovaries can scramble eggs; they used to work in an all-night diner.
Here's my 2 cents.
The art project is a gross idea, whether she really did it or not. It did effectively achieve its purpose though, because well, we're all talking about it.
Her statement, despite being wrought with PoMo pretentiousness, is kinda true, particularly in our biotechnologically modern times. Without getting too technical or sci-fi, cell DNA is pretty darn flexible, as long as you know what to do with it. And, just because your uterus can hold a baby, doesn't necessarily mean you have to use it that way. Of course, there's nothing wrong with using it that way, or not.
I think her statement about a body, its parts, and their intended uses were just a really complicated way of saying, "There are people telling us that women are no more than baby-makers. Women don't have to just be baby-makers. There are lots of others things we can do with our lives."
I agree with your comments, Baby G. Just seems like she could have done it in a clever way, like having her ovaries making scrambled eggs. Or her uterus acting attacking a city. I went to an art show (1 of 2) where my friend painted a pic of her ovary waving to her. I liked it. And it didn't make me want to strangle the artist. :)
Post a Comment