NationStates Jolt Archive

Has the generation long legality and increasing acceptance of abortion altered society's view of pregnancy and procreation of the human species as a whole? A miscarriage, what was one considered a sad tragedy, sympathy and regret for the loss of someone’s preborn progeny, is now nothing but an art medium?

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.

The display of Schvarts’ project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.
Link (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513)

I recognize that people find it 'shocking' still, that this artist considers her miscarriage blood (both her own and the preborn’s) as nothing but a substitute for paint, but at one time this sort of self abuse would have been cause enough to institutionalize the artist for her own protection as clearly she is in need of psychiatric help.

We had a thread about this already didn't we?

We had a thread about this already didn't we?

We did indeed

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554523

It's postmodern art. What do you expect? Something useful?

We had a thread about this already didn't we?

Yes, but it's been over a day since anyone said anything in it, and I'm too lazy to switch the date filter and go hunting for it.

isnt it a fake?

isnt it a fake?

I think it stands at:

Yale says yes (it's fake). She says no.

its a stupid project. i hope she gets a bad grade on it.

one person pretending to abort multiple pregnancies is not a trend.

We did indeed

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554523

Ah, my bad, somehow I'm not surprised that I didn't read a thread called wtf? and I'm not surprised that I didn't know the topic of such a thread either.

its a stupid project. i hope she gets a bad grade on it.

one person pretending to abort multiple pregnancies is not a trend.

She's not pretending

She's not pretending

its still not a trend.

and if she is not pretending, she is an idiot.

I think it stands at:

Yale says yes (it's fake). She says no.

thanks, well if she that dumb as to damage her body and maybe stop herself from successfully carrying a child she may later want, then let her she only harming herself

She's not pretending

thanks, well if she that dumb as to damage her body and maybe stop herself from successfully carrying a child she may later want, then let her she only harming herself

read other thread plzkthx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

thanks, well if she that dumb as to damage her body and maybe stop herself from successfully carrying a child she may later want, then let her she only harming herself

True,

But then, we don't tend to stop artists doing things for their "art," even if there is a high chance of damage.

read other thread plzkthx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Indeedy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351730,00.html

She's the world's second fully functional homicidal artist. The Joker was the first. :)

Time says it's fake (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1732162,00.html). No surprise there. Nor is it surprising that people haven't yet figured out it's fake.

Time says it's fake (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1732162,00.html). No surprise there. Nor is it surprising that people haven't yet figured out it's fake.

... but she has pictures...

Time says it's fake (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1732162,00.html). No surprise there. Nor is it surprising that people haven't yet figured out it's fake.

I'm willing to bet that that's the entire point.

Time says it's fake (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1732162,00.html). No surprise there. Nor is it surprising that people haven't yet figured out it's fake.

It's even more useless, although less retarded, if it's a fake.

I'm really enjoying this work of art so far, and I haven't even seen the physical installation.

I'm really enjoying this work of art so far, and I haven't even seen the physical installation.

It is accomplishing precisely what the artist intends. Which is impressive. *nod*

I'm really enjoying this work of art so far, and I haven't even seen the physical installation.

Indeed. If the purpose of modern art -- its "message" -- is to make the public dance to the artist's tune like trained monkeys, then her project is certainly successful. I fail to see how anyone would think her "miscarriages" are real, though. Getting artificially inseminated is not as simple as getting other art supplies -- or even getting blood to use.

*sigh* Not only did we already have a thread about this, and not only has it come out that she is faking the whole thing, but only you Baldardash would turn a probable discussion about art into your backdoor crusade about how "abortion killz teh babyz".

Seems to me that it could be making a statement that supports your very point, Balderdash.

A piece of art like the one that may be happening in the OP could be interpreted as commentary on the very desensitization of society to issues revolving around pregnancy.

It could also be a deliberate expression of the notion that the majority of fertilized eggs are flushed out every month without implanting on the uterine wall. That fact, when taken into account with the notion that life begins at conception, means that some in this nation assume any sexually active woman who's had more than one period to be a serial killer. That's powerful stuff; and so is the art.

The point of art is the very possibility of multiple interpretations of such expressions. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agreed on what art was good or which media artists are allowed to use. If an artist breaks a law, arrest her. Failing that, her right to expression is enshrined in the Constitution, as is anyone else's right to think she's completely whacked out.

The slippery slope truly steepens when any mob is allowed to decide for the rest of us what will or will not be considered "legitimate" expression.

It is accomplishing precisely what the artist intends. Which is impressive. *nod*

Agreed.

*sigh* Not only did we already have a thread about this, and not only has it come out that she is faking the whole thing, but only you Baldardash would turn a probable discussion about art into your backdoor crusade about how "abortion killz teh babyz".

I'm not the only one that linked it to abortion, someone at Yale does too.

In his statement, Storr emphasized that the University “has a profound commitment to freedom of expression” and that he, personally, supports the legality of abortion.
link (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24579)

...snip...

Thank you for posting. It's because of posts like yours that I bother posting in this forum at all :)

Age has done a lot for me. Thank you for your kind words.

I'm not the only one that linked it to abortion, someone at Yale does too.

In his statement, Storr emphasized that the University “has a profound commitment to freedom of expression” and that he, personally, supports the legality of abortion.
link (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24579)


Ah, it's cherry-picking season again, I see. Too bad you included the link to the article, because when one reads that comment in context, it becomes even more obvious that Mr. Storr is NOT connecting this nonsense to abortion at all. He is just making it clear that, if he decides to reject this woman's art project from the group exhibition at Yale, it will not be to censor free speech nor because of any anti-choice agenda. In other words, he saying it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. You fail again. This thread is nothing more than an attempt to build a new strawman for yourself, but it's just not working.

It is accomplishing precisely what the artist intends. Which is impressive. *nod*

It most certainly is.

I think she's a genius: she's found a way to have her art mentionned in newspapers world-wide by (apparently) faking some gory artwork. As Modern Art is devoid of talent, the fame (or infamy) of the artist is the only thing which seems to determine the value of the art they produce, and infamy is something she won't be lacking for some time. I'm guessing she'll pay of her student debt several times over in a few years, lucky little [insert jealous expletives here].

*cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554523)