I stumbled across an article in the Yale Daily News, titled “For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse.” The article, as you may guess, discussed the use of abortion and art to make a statement.
Senior, Aliza Shvarts, shockingly, has documented a 9-month process in which she inseminates herself while taking abortifacient drugs to cause miscarriages. She will display the “exhibit” as video recording of the forced miscarriages as well as collected blood from the process.
The ethical and graphic issues associated with this “exhibit” will certainly catapult Aliza into international notoriety, but, I wonder as an artist or an violator of ethics? Aliza explained that the art is intended to spark a conversation about art and the human body.
The Yale Daily news describes the upcoming exhibit:
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.
I could only find one of Aliza’s pieces on the internet, but perhaps it sheds a light on the why.
Aliza Shvarts. Disarticulation, 12 in. x 12 in. x 24in. Plaster, vaseline, towels, rubber bands, latex gloves
[credit: Dimensions Magazine]
Has this gone beyond art in order to offend as many people as possible?
Update: Max Bacon points out that this a hoax. From the Yale website:
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.
[via Yale Daily News]
Popularity: 84% [?]
Tagged as: abortion, aliza, Art, body, ethics, Exhibit, shvarts, yale
I truly wonder what causes someone to create “art” of this sort. Political, ethical and religious aspects aside, this seems geared for maximum shock value. A quick way to noteriety. One of the unfortunate side-effects of our YouTube society is that one really has to go a ridiculously long distance to come up with anything new or outrageous, these day. It’s all been done. She’ll get a ton of attention. People will debate the installation on every continent. She’ll be damned to hell by people she’ll never meet. And I’m imagining that she’ll love every minute of it. Sigh…
What part of “offending as many people as possible” betrays art?
Whether something has been taken “too far” is anyone’s judgment call, but shock value can be just another facet of making art– I don’t understand how, in this postmodern world of ours, we can even pretend that art only exists within established limits of “decency.” That’s an awfully tired concept of art.
There have been times when I wanted to paint something that reflected painful emotions, and I knew it would be shocking and maybe even hard to look at, but I didn’t. I decided my art was not gonna be about bringing up pain or reminding of it but that I would stick to images that made people happy or brought beauty to light. I am horrified by this article. Why would someone make a point to focus on something so awful? And she’s actually making herself misscarry? This is sick. I’m pro-choice but this should be illegal.
Kyle, great post and please continue to help me out with the art side of this blog in the future.
holy shit. this is gross, to be sure, but also fascinating. and no doubt that this girl has considered the shock value of what’s she’s doing, and how it will indeed rocket her to international notoriety. she’ll receive death threats from zealots, and she’ll be canonized by lunatics… and she knew ALL of that before she got into it. it had to have influenced her decision in some way or another, so, OK… she’s a narcissist. lots of artists are.
but i don’t care about any of that.
the way i look at it, art becomes more science with each passing movement or breakthrough. both artists and scientists are out to explore the world around them, they just come at it from different angles. at some point (assuming they’re both examining the same world) their methods and discoveries should begin to resemble one another… art becomes science, and vice versa.
add to this girl’s exhibit a sterile lab setting, some medical degrees, and the academic rigors of the scientific method, and you’ve got a human fertility study. what is art? in this case it’s what’s left over when you do away with the formalities of science, and just deal with the mess. but it’s getting close.
@ 4 art and science were as one until the renaissance. Artistic breakthroughs were often scientific breakthroughs; each step in science affected the development of art. To wit the relationship between the science of anatomy and the art of figure drawing/painting. See also, the science of perspective.
As distasteful as it may be, it is art. Curious as to the abortifacient. Concerned for artists health and safety. Also concerned that some nutjob will do her harm. Very interesting from a medical ethics point of view. The use of the phrase “she inseminates herself .” Why is she or the author de-sexualizing the process? To remove the human “element”? Or am I wrong in assuming she is impregnating herself the old fashion way? I’m sure she isn’t being impregnated at a clinic. Perhaps she id using a turkey baster and a sperm donation. Is it the same man each time? Is the donor anonymous or a friend of the artist? Interesting, interesting, interesting.
She is clearly influenced by Matthew Barney and Damien Hirst, derivatively so to her discredit. A for effort in taking it to the next level.
completely derivative. damien hirst was the first thing i thought of.
“how can i make as much ruckus as he did? maybe even get my work featured in a visually stunning but otherwise terrible feature-length studio film… i know! i’ll abort my own babies and video tape it!”
This is Shvarts’ senior art project. What grade do you think she received for it?
Does it gross me out? Yes. Does it disturb me? Yes. Do I think it’s art? Yes. I agree sometimes I don’t want to be confronted with things like this, and at times I just want art to be beautiful and make me feel good. But I’ve had three really fascinating conversations about this already today and it’s got me thinking about a lot of things based on my reaction to it. Why is it so jarring to me? What does it mean for me to be pro-choice but horrified by this? What do I think about her doing this to her body? I’m still processing all of this. It doesn’t make me feel real happy, but it’s making me think and making me examine my beliefs, and I appreciate that.
Lots of opinions from people who haven’t even seen the installation. Who knows… It could be really beautiful and moving.
I agree that it still fits the definition of art (after all, virtually everything is art, depending upon how you look at it). I simply think that I would prefer discussing the idea of this project much more without knowing it’s actually been accomplished. That part makes me sad. Which, I’m sure she’d say, is what she wanted. And that strong reaction wouldn’t be possible from merely positing the concept; only follow-through creates visceral reaction and resultant dialogue. Whatever. Still sad.
I think its fabulous! would love to attend.
I’m sorry, but when I get an abortion because of perosnal reasons, that’s my choice and sad. When someone purposely aborts themselves again and again as an art project, that is disgusting. No beauty about it.
Purposely impregnating oneself for the sole reason to abort it is NOT art, to me. Its self abuse. It’s a cry for attention. I see it as an incomprehensible action beneath a facade of creativity to generate attention to the “artist”. So if I go stab someone, take pictures of them as they slowly bleed to death, then transform those pics through some medium, will I be vindicated as an “artist”?
Beauty and art are two different things.
Art and morality are two different things, as well.
But where does Art stop and Morality (or Beauty) begin? Where is this obviously fine line? What would it take for Art to not be Art but simply wrong? Which begs the query…..What is Art?
street– you certainly wouldn’t be vindicated under the law, but one could make the argument that you’re an artist.
wait, there’s a line between art and morality?
Yeah, but anyone could make an argument that anything is Art. Is Art completely subjective? Does it have boundaries? My mind is reeling from the endless possibilities.
I’m more comfortable with anything being art than I am with morality being involved.
Call me crazy, but I don’t really see what statement this “art” makes other than “I, the artist, am intensely f**ked up.” To that extent, it evokes a response: pity.
I’m not sure why she’s doing it. To demonstrate the banality and disposability of our deepest ties to our own biology? I suppose. Does that make me think or re-examine my beliefs? For a second. No more than a well-argued debate with somebody I mildly respect.
The sheer extremity of her actions makes her easy to write off as a self-absorbed lunatic. Her big ideas won’t travel far (assuming they’re there at all) because the whole installation is structured to be about her, her, her. The responses and the debate will be about her, not about abortion or biology or morality or anything else.
Is Art only physical, or can it be purely emotional? I guess it can only be considered Art if other people can view/hear/smell/touch/taste it. Right?
/please kill me now and make some art from my remains. My brain hurts.
I think that anything probably can be art. However, some things aren’t moral (with levels of morality being personal to every individual). That’s more what I meant to say. The right or wrong of creating the art may be debated in terms of morality. Which is an issue separate and apart from whether or not it is art. In that sense, there is a line between art and morality. They are two different things. Apples and oranges.
ThatGrrl— agreed. And I should clarify my line 20 as well; I was reacting to the false dichotomy of art v morality, not suggesting they were one and the same.
Street– I remember seeing a while back that one’s ashes can be made into a pack of graphite pencils, so I suppose that could be arranged, if you were so inclined.
@26 - I’d rather be a diamond, thanks.
i have to strongly resist the urge to vomit everything i’ve learned about tolstoy and his theory of art in relation to this - never mind his stance on morality. but now i’ve gotten to wondering what he would say about this. and i also want to know more, like how old the fetuses will be when they’re aborted. as in, would any of the ones on display be clearly human, or will they be still young enough to only be a smaller, indistinguishable mass of cells? i’m not sure i agree with her method, but i’m certainly glad she’s decided to spark this conversation. fascinating stuff, this.
Purposely impregnating oneself for the sole reason to abort it is NOT art, it’s f*cked up and really f*cking sad. And this “art” is nothing more than a self absorbed attention seeker, much like those faces of Death movies from the eighties. It’s not art it’s crap. Maybe to document it once under natural circumstances, it could be art, but to create these abortions over and over is wrong.
Thanks for weighing in everyone.
I would like to remind you that Shaun has asked everyone to refrain from profanity on this site. He’s the boss, so please let’s not use 4 letter words.
It’s all a big hoax
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Leading pro-life groups reacted with dismay after learning that a Yale art student successfully duped the nation on Thursday with claims of an art project involving repeated self-induced abortions. The groups said Yale officials should have stopped the ruse earlier and added it was offensive to women.
Read more here.
Wow, this was a pretty well executed hoax. It made it on the front page of drudge report and was the highest searched term in Google. She will still reach international notoriety.
this is so meta. my exploded head just re-exploded.
Wow…that’s crazy. It definitely generated a ton of attention and it will be interesting to see what the backlash from this is going to be.
Thanks Kyle @30. Folks, let’s try and keep profanity off the site. It would be greatly appreciated.
Ahh HA HA HA. I Love it!!! Wonderful show. Would love to hear/see/learn more. Kudos.
[…] Our Song of the Day choice goes out to Aliza Shvarts, the Yale art student who hoaxed the world yesterday with news of her fake “art exhibit” that supposedly was going to display a video recording of her own forced miscarriages. If you haven’t heard about this one you can read more here. […]
@30 This cant have been a real rule, four letr wrds arnt bein used enuf! Shit, cmon guys.
Squid, you should really check out the “About Us” section. I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade here, I’m just trying to elevate the conversation. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
I know I’m poking fun. I can’t believe you didn’t even notice that my whole comment was four letter words! OK I cheated a bit.
You clever so and so squid
The lesson here is… Don’t judge art without actually seeing it first.
I’ll second that artPark.
I goofed! But, so did Drudge Report, The Washington Post and Fox News.
no, you didn’t goof at all Kyle. you were merely duped like the rest of us
@44 it could be argued that fox news is the greatest goof of all.
[…] It’s not like it was an abortion exhibit, it was a silly pile of doggie doo. Props to LYDM for being openminded. Go see it tomorrow during […]
[…] see the beauty of a nude youth without feeling like it’s wrong? This incident, not unlike the Abortion art project, raises some interesting questions about what art is exactly and what it […]