Oh, Earth, yet another day of meetings, meetings, meetings. And I’m so very tired. Fried practically. This is the first moment I’ve had to myself all day.
But, what can you do?
It’s good to think hard about things.
“Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.”
Heh.
(And I just want to say, before you stroke out at the thought of what she claims she’s done, take a second to think about whether she could have done what she claims she’s done. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, this is an important portion of her art–how people react to what she claims she’d done. And yes, I’m suspicious–given the time-frame and the realities of how difficult it can be to get pregnant in any given month and the complete implausibility that any dudes at college who donated sperm to this project would be able to keep their mouthes shut for this long about it–that she hasn’t at all done what she claims to have done. In that regard, I think the piece is brilliant, for now.)
Filed under: abortion
Hmmm, we’re on the same wavelength today.
First of all, I wasn’t aware that any of us actually had a “constitutional right” to do whatever with our bodies… I’ll have to chew on that… if that were true, wouldn’t prostitution be legal?
Regarding the Yale artist chick, I’m horrified because she’s presenting her work under false pretenses. She’s not doing it for art. She’s doing it to get her name out there. She’s being a media whore – probably a poor choice of words, but that’s the only ones that come to mind. What makes her “art” any different than the Paris Hilton sex tape?
Consider two of the most important female artist’s of the 20th century: Cindy Sherman & Judy Chicago
Cindy Sherman rose through the ranks of the art world by creating work (photos, films) that was and remains today as thought provoking — it’s a little off — it makes people squirm — these pieces helped Sherman elevate herself through the feminist ranks — but she did it with an actual thought behind it – and her body of work shows a progression. Then see Judy Chicago — Her installation, “Dinner Party”, is a milestone of 20th Century art — and is hailed by feminists. She didn’t have to go and mutilate her body and cause a shit storm just to get famous. She had ideas and translated those ideas into a large scale installation that still commands attention today.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/
Just because one can spike the ball, doesn’t mean one should spike the ball.
if true, that would be some seriously fucked up art.
heck, even if not true, that’s some seriously fucked up art. i’m thinking i should perhaps put “art” in scare quotes, at that.
but, yeah, whether it’s true or not, her perfect right to do. i’ll still go on record as thinking it’s seriously fucked up, however.
Probably a hoax.
The real question is, can she actually draw, paint, or sculpt, or is getting the squares all riled up the only talent this ‘artist’ actually has.
Lame. And predictable.
Lee, are we actually in agreement about something? I’m actually embarrassed that so many people cannot see this as exactly about her trying to rile folks up. That’s tortured artist 101. She’s lame for doing it, but folks are lame for falling for it.
Whether she did it or not, Lee & B make another point for me — but I can’t come out and say it b/c I’d be perceived as an elitist artist bitch — if she could actually paint, sculpt or draw, or whatever… she wouldn’t have to resort to the controversy angle. Cheap.
for the record: most of the reason i called this episode seriously fucked up is the lameness of it, and the desperate extremes she’s gone to just to produce such a disappointingly lame shock-jock project. such desperate extremism should have been able to tap more creativity than this, in a reasonably talented person.
Eh, well, I don’t think you’re elitist, Miss Beth, but I do think you’re wrong. Some people have a talent or even genius for visual art. And some people have a talent or even genius for self-promotion. And there is some overlap between those two groups. I mean, Judy Chicago did a lot of provocative presentation to get her work noticed. So she did it.
ok, NM, I’ll give you Judy Chicago… I was in a bit of a rush on the thought process there — I’m an artist, not a writer after all… ;-)
Sorry, I hit Send too soon.
Continues: so she did the provocative stuff, and that made a lot of us notice her as an artist. If she hadn’t, I’m not sure we’d be discussing her here.
Miss Beth, you’re too modest. You write clearly enough to get your point across, after all. Whereas, I have to tell you, if I did a picture of the sun in the sky over a house you’d have to ask me what it was. And if I tried to take a photo of it, I’d move the camera. So you’re ahead of me, at least.
Yup, B. Totally.
thanks NM… I feel like I’m swimming in a shark tank of really great writers here… that makes me feel really amazing.
Other point I forgot to include: the fact that this artist is included within the ranks of Yale, well, she’s probably got some amazing work within her. And that really irritates me — she’s probably got some incredible work to show – to throw out there and see if it sticks to the wall. But rather than truly challenging herself & the rest of us with that work, she has taken the low road. And that cheapens it for the rest of us.
Sure, we as artists have to create something that speaks from us and to us and then to the world at large – that’s why I create. But I just don’t get it. And of course, it’s not for me to “get” — maybe someone out there will create something incredible as a reaction to her artistic statement. Who knows? Only time will tell.
But for the sake of argument, being a pro-choicer here, how does her action (being it true or a hoax) further the cause of women being in control of their bodies? This is just another case for the pro-life movement and extremists that bomb abortion clinics to point a finger and say “SEE!” — so, if she’s out there using her “art” as a method of shining a spotlight, the spotlight can get awfully hot… and destroy the very thing she had hopes of highlighting for a worthy cause.
ugh, too riled up now… need cocktail. Being feminist can be difficult… and I don’t really wave that banner often.
I don’t think she has done anything particularly wise, understand. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if she thinks she’s doing something wise she is remarkably foolish. I just don’t like the assumption that because she self-promotes in foolish ways she has proven that she has no art in her. Cocktails may help in appreciating this.
Beth hits on something that I think is important, too. It’s all well and good that an artist at Yale has the freedom to (fake) get pregnant and end the pregnancies as often as she likes and make art about it (or art about people’s unhinged reactions to it), but she has now (unless it turns out to be fake, which is why I’m so hoping that it is) given the anti-abortionists a great talking point–that our hopes for the future include this.
And the thing is that, in general, I’m not concerned about this–if women have full autonomy over their own bodies, a very few will do really stupid things with those bodies. C’est la vie, say the old folks.
But the thing is that right now, most women don’t have anything near the ability to even get pregnant and decide whether to go forward with the pregnancy without having to navigate a whole bunch of public and private claims by others to her body.
And maybe this makes me old or out of touch or whatever, but I don’t find this provocative. I find it bratty.
And it could be that I’m just remembering the shit that Judy Chicago pulled, but it always came across to me as having, at its core, a sense of humor and a generosity of spirit. I find that lacking in this piece.
Well, having first seen this on the right side of the internet, I can say that after the initial shock/outrage, the realization of the probable hoax set in pretty quickly, and while some are still up in arms, most are now pretty dismissive.
And while I would absolutely love to get in an abortion debate with you wonderful ladies right now, it seems almost dirty to do so predicated by this falseness.
We’ll have to do it another time. And Missbethd, I plan on having a vodka and cranberry tonight. Hope you enjoy yours.
It was a hoax, after all:
http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2008/04/abortoartists_was_faking_no_fetuses_were_hurt_in_the_making_of_this_senior_project.html
Lee, I did enjoy my Abita Purple Haze tonight at Flying Saucer. I hope your Vodka Cranberry went down equally as smooth.
Wow, I enjoyed this discussion… hoax and all…
I don’t see the impact of her art as being without value. I’m in the “safe, legal, rare” camp on abortion. I don’t like abortion (emotionally), but I can’t accept that society should force women to go through with a pregnancy.
But her art challenges my position. It isn’t “I get to have an abortion to get out of a bad situation.” She asserts a right that isn’t dependent upon a situation that we both think is bad. By doing this, she cements her right to choose as being “more unconditional” (yeah, I’m not a great writer either).
She forces me off the fence, into agreeing that even in a case such as this, her rights are sacrosanct. Art is supposed to be able to change attitudes, and push boundaries; I think that this work has more than shock value.
[...] there was Aunt B. who wasn’t duped by the hoax at [...]
http://unapologetic.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/art/