Abortion a medium for art

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Anyone who says this is art if a ing idiot. A ING IDIOT!

Change is to isn't and I agree.

-1

[Don Quixote]

Hmm. You may have a point. The philosophy of art is not my strong suit. I'm geared toward approaching things from an ethical or epistemic angle.

That said, it would be some sick art, if indeed this were a real exhibit. Like the one about the dog they just let starve -- you might make the case that it's art, but the way the majority of us would look at it, we'd say, so what? It's sick!

[Don Quixote]

One last comment. My case against such an exhibit would not merely be a judgment on my personal taste -- "I don't like it." I don't care for certain types of modern and postmodern art or sculpture. I don't care for certain types of music or literature. Everyone has their own individual tastes and preferences, and that's fine.

This kind of (hypothetical) exhibit, however, would cross the line. Putting aborted fetuses (or a starving dog) on display takes the discussion out of aesthetics and into ethics and moral philosophy. I would be justified in saying that such an exhibit would be morally wrong. It would no longer be a matter of beauty or taste or whether or not it is art (aesth.)

But yes, I guess it would be art.

[ShoogarBear]

Are the dark quote boxes annoying anyone else?

I find them quite a bit more artistic than the old ones.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I got nothing.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

She should have aborted this piece of she calls art.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Do they give you a barf bag at the exhibition?

[smeagol]

I will hang pictures of me taking a dump in an exhibition.

According to Funt, if I call it art, then it probably is art.

[CuckingFunt]

Do they give you a barf bag at the exhibition?

I hope so. That could be used as the next show.

[CuckingFunt]

I will hang pictures of me taking a dump in an exhibition.

According to Funt, if I call it art, then it probably is art.

Yep. Though, just like the aborted fetuses, I think I'd skip your show.

[monosylab1k]

"For the official university statement from the Yale University Office of Public Affairs regarding Ms. Shvarts’ work, please click here (http://www.yale.edu/opa/) or read below:


Statement by Helaine S. Klasky — Yale University, Spokesperson

New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008

Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. 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.

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.

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

the fallback plan of all shock-value performance "artists". If your "art" produces a storm of controversy and people are calling you out as the sick that you are, just tell them you were faking it all along.

[Findog]

It is art.

It's exactly the kind of pretentious, shock-for-the-sake-of-shock art that I tend to stay far away from, but it's art.

CF FTW.

This is as bad as the starving dog episode.

[Fillmoe]

stupid... i hope someone ends her life

[tlongII]

It's weird.

[smeagol]

Yep. Though, just like the aborted fetuses, I think I'd skip your show.

Thanks for calling pictures of me taking a dump a "show".

I have a bunch of other very "artsy" ideas which involve turturing animals, starving kids, mourning widows and terminally ill people . . .

[Kori Ellis]

I'm not responding to the subject of the thread.

But I would just like to say that you all are ALWAYS ing about something. Read at the top of the freakin Spurs forum and you will see that the quote boxes, multiple signatures, etc aren't staying this way. We had a choice, leave the forum down for days til we re-customized everything, or put it up as soon as it migrated and do the customization when we have time. We chose the latter.

[peewee's lovechild]

And, yet, none of that would make it not art. Edouard Manet received the same reaction when he first exhibited his "Luncheon on the Grass," which is now considered to be one of the most important Realist paintings of the time.

I'm consistently amused by this notion that art can only be a pretty painting or sculpture. Art is often disturbing, or depressing, or unpleasant, or stupid, or unethical, or looney, or just plain bad.

As I said last time this argument came up, it's the artist that determines whether or not something is art; the viewer can only decide whether or not they like it. To suggest that something isn't art just because you don't like it is absurd.

Manet?

Funt, you're comparing a painting to abortions . . . you do realize that, don't you?

[CuckingFunt]

Manet?

Funt, you're comparing a painting to abortions . . . you do realize that, don't you?

Nice diversion, but I did nothing of the sort. I compared the reaction, not the art. I simply used the Manet example to challenge the idea that something being unethical, looney, or immoral wasn't enough to completely discount it as art.

[peewee's lovechild]

Nice diversion, but I did nothing of the sort. I compared the reaction, not the art. I simply used the Manet example to challenge the idea that something being unethical, looney, or immoral wasn't enough to completely discount it as art.

It's not a diversion, at all.

You're comparing the reaction to a PAINTING with the reaction to multiple abortions.

It's not the same thing.
It's not even close.

[CuckingFunt]

It's not a diversion, at all.

You're comparing the reaction to a PAINTING with the reaction to multiple abortions.

It's not the same thing.
It's not even close.

If it's not a diversion, then it's a complete misunderstanding of my point.

In the post I was responding to, Don Quixote made the assertion that looney, unethical, and immoral = not art. By default. I used the Manet as an example of the opposite specifically because it is now considered to be such an important work. I could have used Mapplethorp, Warhol, The Doors, or John Waters and the point would have still been valid.

[Spurminator]

At what point is something not art? I think we need to determine this. See below scale. At which point are we no longer discussing art?

1. An oil painting of flowers

2. A watercolor painting of flowers

3. A watercolor painting of flowers and doo doo

4. A charcoal drawing of flowers and doo doo

5. A charcoal drawing of Jesus eating doo doo while sitting on flowers

6. A depiction of Jesus eating doo doo while sitting on flowers, painted using a combination of goat's blood and saliva

7. A depiction of BABY Jesus eating doo doo while sitting on flowers, painted using a combination of goats blood and saliva

8. A homeless man sitting in an art gallery on a bed of flowers, eating doo doo

9. A homeless man dressed as Jesus sitting in an art gallery on a bed of flowers, eating doo doo

10. A Hootie and the Blowfish Greatest Hits album

11. A homeless man dressed as Jesus sitting in an art gallery on a bed of flowers, eating doo doo, covered with goats blood and saliva

12. A homeless man dressed as Jesus sitting in an art gallery on a bed of flowers, eating doo doo, covered with goats blood and saliva and singing "Let Her Cry" by Hootie and the Blowfish

[CuckingFunt]

12. A homeless man dressed as Jesus sitting in an art gallery on a bed of flowers, eating doo doo, covered with goats blood and saliva and singing "Let Her Cry" by Hootie and the Blowfish

I'd still have to call that art, even though we've FINALLY found something that deeply offends me.

ing Hootie.

[peewee's lovechild]

If it's not a diversion, then it's a complete misunderstanding of my point.

In the post I was responding to, Don Quixote made the assertion that looney, unethical, and immoral = not art. By default. I used the Manet as an example of the opposite specifically because it is now considered to be such an important work. I could have used Mapplethorp, Warhol, The Doors, or John Waters and the point would have still been valid.

If that was the point you made, then I would have to give it to you.

I can agree that it doesn't matter if art is immoral and what not.
What I can't agree with is the assertion that multiple abortions would be considered art.

There have been many artists that use their visual representations of reality in an offensive manner. I'm okay with that. But, an abortion is not a representation of reality. It is an actual act.

A painting of an abortion, or a sculpture of an aborted fetus is not the same thing as an actual aborted fetus..

[peewee's lovechild]

I'd still have to call that art, even though we've FINALLY found something that deeply offends me.

ing Hootie.

There is nothing wrong with Hootie.

Well, their first two albums anyway.

[CuckingFunt]

If that was the point you made, then I would have to give it to you.

I can agree that it doesn't matter if art is immoral and what not.
What I can't agree with is the assertion that multiple abortions would be considered art.

There have been many artists that use their visual representations of reality in an offensive manner. I'm okay with that. But, an abortion is not a representation of reality. It is an actual act.

A painting of an abortion, or a sculpture of an aborted fetus is not the same thing as an actual aborted fetus..

Performance art, however, is always going to be about that actual act.