Thursday, April 17, 2008

Art or Insanity?

Well, it looks like postmodernism has finally reached its logical conclusion in art: abortion. Seriously. There is a woman who has an "art" project that consists of her abortions.

How dare she call what she is doing art? There is no way I would put this in the same category as anything I or anyone I would call an artist does. This is perversity, pure and simple. Give me a pickled shark or chopped up cow any day of the week.

Seriously, what do we think of this?

______________________

As followup, the student is now saying she didn't actually do the abortions, but that it was a performance piece. How can we know that it is and not that the dean made her say it is?
______________________

And now, to followup on the followup, Shvarts is now claiming that she did do the abortions and that Yale is lying. So my initial suspicion was correct.

We either need a new word for the kind of thing this disturbed woman is doing -- or we need one for the work Michaelangelo and Shakespeare did, because I refuse to consider the works of these two to be in the same category as this woman's.

This is one of the most offensive things I have ever run across. And this is from someone who reads the Marquis de Sade (whose works I find to be mostly funny rather than offensive) and Bataille without feeling offended.

7 comments:

Todd Camplin said...

I think she would be part of the anti-art movement. She is trying to be iconoclastic. Not much of a trick. What next, murder someone and a call it art. Or read a book and call it art. Point at a cloud and call it art, hey wait that pointing at a cloud is a great idea. Its mind, don't take it.

Troy Camplin said...

Anna suggested that this "artist" take her theory to its logical conclusion. Anna suggested that the woman should chop off all her toes and make a necklace -- since that's another way one could use toes. Or take out her eyes and make earrings from them. Since she's asking "what should my uterus be for anything?" why not ask the same things of her toes and eyes and other body parts? This isn't art -- it's feminist stupidity.

Todd Camplin said...

Aliza Shvarts is following several artists that deal with body art. Chris Burden had one of his students shoot him in the art as a performance piece. Or like Marc Quinn and his blood head. Quinn took blood from his body every month until he had enough to fill his mold of his head. The work is displayed in a glassed in freezer. True, she is taking body art to an extreme, because she does not value the product, i.e. baby. Burben valued his own life, that is why he had the student shoot him in the arm. And Quinn valued his life, because he didn't take the blood all at once. Shvarts didn't value the babies or her own health. That many abortions could not be good for anyone. Not have any values is the root of the problem. Shvarts was foolish while thinking she was bold. She is already getting what she really wants, not art but fame.

Troy Camplin said...

Of course that's what she really wants. And people should be calling her out on that and refusing her the label of artist.

Yes, she's in a line of people doing such things, but there are some things that cross the line. I'm as convinced that the one who had himself shot is just as mentally ill as Shvarts. Why should we call the mere expression of mental illness art?

Here's another example of the same kind of bull being done as "art." Only in this case, we're talking about public sex. Please, that's not art -- it's a way for someone to get his jollies. And he found some fool who would give him a grade for it.

Todd Camplin said...

If you would like to talk about this with Yale, here is a blog for you http://dimensionsart.blogspot.com/
I am sure you can throw in some two cents.

Troy Camplin said...

Just posted. Should be interesting. I accused her of nihilism.

Todd Camplin said...

How one forgets the The Marquis de Sade. These two are light wieghts compared to him.