That's not exactly what I said.
What I said was, when you have an exhibit such as these (dead dogs, fetuses, real human bodies obtained from only-God-knows where), it raises ethical questions that make aesthetic questions (e.g., is it good? is it even art?) irrelevant.
So, if you want to call it art, fine. I just don't think it's a salient question at this point.
A good observation! Again, the philosophy of art is not my field, but doesn't art have to represent something, and not be the actual thing?
Then again, we could turn around and say, well these (hypothetical aborted babies) represent "ambiguity, potential, the modernist corruption of life," or a million other things. So I don't know.
Your later post made that more clear, but the post I responded to just said that it wasn't art because it was unethical:
You're right.
I'll give you that.
However, I don't think having an abortion = performance art.
If it were, giving birth would be performance art.
After all, women give birth every day and I've never seen an art gallery set up in a nursery ward of a hospital.
Oh look, I'm typing.
It's performance art.
And, look at that, we're right back at the beginning of the argument! Congratulations.
There is no argument if you give creedence to an abortion = art, or performance art.
WE MUST PROTECT THE DEFINITION OF ART!!
And 'round and 'round we go.
Yes, I'd agree. I'm generally for protecting the definition of WORDS. This is the danger with performance art and other post-modern art forms. If we keep expanding the definition of the term "art," before you know it, art is everything, art is nothing, and the term becomes meaningless.
And indeed, we're sitting here wasting our time typing, and that's art. Why? Because I said it is. It's existential, and stuff.
I suppose if I dug deep enough I could accept this as conceptual art. But I can't accept anything that is not SINCERE as any form of art. This woman's project took place over a nine month period. I think we all know it is possible to get pregnant "the first time", but not always likely. After a real miscarriage, medical research shows that it takes 4 to 12 weeks for a woman's body to return to normal fertility. Did she get pregnant again immediately when her period stabilized? Was she ever really pregnant? Did she pass off a normal period as a miscarriage? Miscarriages of less than 12 weeks are usually nothing more than a "heavier than usual" period; not requiring the bathtub agony she supposedly videotaped. So for me to accept this as true conceptual art, I guess I would need proof of her pregnancies; otherwise, in my opinion, this is a ruse and then not art.
How does that make a difference? Legal = art, but illegal = not art?
I see less of an attempt to expand the definition of "art" to include performance, and more of an attempt to narrow the definition of "art" to represent only certain genres or sensibilities.
I never said that. I said that the two situations were different in terms of legality and were difficult to compare for that reason, but I made no comments on whether or not the illegal example would have been art.
why is that?
Original comment:
My response:
I don't see how this could possibly be confusing. The legal implications ABSOLUTELY change the context of the two hypothetical situations. If someone were to have an exhibition that included toddler corpses, odds are that they and the gallery directors would be going to jail.
It's only going 'round and 'round because you can't accept the fact that you claiming that it's art is giving it creedence as art.
Look, I know that your trying to speak up for "art" because you're an Art Major and what not.
But, there's just no way that an abortion can be considered art, or performance art as you will have it.
Step away from your art pedestal and look upon it in a sensible way.
What's next, faking a murder and calling it "performance art"?
Come on Funt, you're smarter than that.
The problem with that is that there is a completely credible and relevant argument that a fetus is a living thing.
There absolutely could be a legal argument here.
So you're saying that while they're different only because you can get arrested for one and not the other, they're both art?
Leaving aside your medical talk (which has some valid points and some unexplained points in the original article) - none of it matters.
The entire thing is performance art (or so she claims). The news release, the concept, everything was 'creative fiction' - a narrative.
In other words - a hoax.
I hate it when someone uses "re ed" to try to make a point.
I'm looking forward to the "art" exhibit that features the "artist" having self-induced spontaneous abortions with a starving dog standing there waiting to consume whatever comes out. A forward thinker, somewhere, will have to do this for the sake of art. Have to.
Agreed, very dangerous. Think of the ramifications.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/..._5Ylg4yAztiBIF
Yale: Student's artwork purporting to show abortion a hoax By PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press Writer
HARTFORD, Conn. - A Yale University art student's claim that she induced repeated abortions on herself and used the blood for her senior project is false, school officials said after her account was published in the student newspaper.
Aliza Shvarts described the project in a story Thursday in the Yale Daily News. She said she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while taking herbal drugs to induce miscarriages, the story said.
The account swept across blogs and media outlets before Yale issued a statement saying it investigated and found it all to be a hoax that was Shvarts' idea of elaborate "performance art."
"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," said Yale spokeswoman Helaine Klasky.
But in a guest column published in Friday's student newspaper, Shvarts insisted the project was real. She described her "repeated self-induced miscarriages," although she allows that she never knew if she was actually pregnant.
"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," she said.
"Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether ... 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," she wrote.
Shvarts told the newspaper she planned to display a work that consisted of a cube lined with plastic sheets with a blood-and-petroleum-jelly mixture in between, onto which she would project video footage of herself "experiencing miscarriages in her bathroom tub."
University officials said Shvarts' project included visual representations, a news release and other narrative materials. When confronted by three senior Yale officials, including two deans, Shvarts acknowledged that she was never pregnant and did not induce abortions, Klasky said.
"She said if Yale puts out a statement saying she did not do this, she would say Yale was doing that to protect its reputation," Klasky said.
Shvarts told the paper her goal was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body.
Andrew Mangino, editor-in-chief of Yale Daily News, said the newspaper published the story after receiving a news release about the project. A reporter interviewed Shvarts and other students and saw photos and video that she said was part of the art project, he said.
"At this point it's just he said and she said," Mingino said Friday. "The problem seems to be in the ambiguity of what each side is saying."
Shvarts could not be reached for comment. Her telephone number was disconnected and she did not respond to e-mails or a knock on the door at the address listed for her in the campus directory.
Groups for and against abortion rights expressed outrage over the affair.
Ted Miller, a spokesman for NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the concept offensive and "not a constructive addition to the debate over reproductive rights."
Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Ins ute of Connecticut, an anti-abortion group, said his anger was not mitigated by the fact that Shvarts may never not have been pregnant. "I'm astounded by this woman's callousness," he said.
What am I defending or speaking up for?
My only argument -- in this thread, the dog thread, or any similar threads that may pop up in the future -- is that it is not up to you or I or anyone else to summarily decide that something isn't or can't be art just because we may not agree with what it's saying or how it's being said. That's it. You want to say that this girl's performance art is pretentious bull ? I'll agree. You want to say that art itself, or the art world/community as a whole, is pretentious bull ? You'll get very little argument from me.
I've yet to see a single counter argument that is supported by something more substantial that one's individual taste, personal policy, or comfort level. All of which are more than enough to influence one's opinion of or reaction to a particular artistic expression, of course, but not even close to enough to conclusively decide that it isn't a valid artistic expression.
there's some heavy quote editing going on in here. must be a slow news day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote