An "artist" who confuses freedom of conscience with freedom from conscience.
Update Ah, not actually thoroughly amoral, just someone whose moral sense is sufficiently stunted that she thinks there is something surprising and "ambiguous" about the general public's reaction to the idea of deliberately creating a fetus for the purpose of fingerpainting with its blood. Presumably for her follow up she will reprint the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in crayon in order to explore western culture's complex relationship with religious minorities.
Stupid, to say the least. However, I have to point out that the pro-life side gets bent out of shape if you accuse abortion-clinic murders as being emblematic of the pro-life movement in general, and rightly so; and so here.
Hey, I oppose regulating abortion beyond how any other medical procedure is regulated, but this is profoundly, grotesquely, immoral.
My BS-o-meter is registering medium to high likelihood of BS on that story. A few more clicks over, and I'd have to declare a state of shenanigans.
I have to point out that the pro-life side gets bent out of shape if you accuse abortion-clinic murders as being emblematic of the pro-life movement in general, and rightly so; and so here.
Before you reach for that parallel, let's await the denunciations by mainstream pro-choice organizations and personalities. To the extent that they aren't forthcoming, we may assume that pro-choicers do not, in fact, disapprove (which would be consistent with the clump-of-cells rhetoric), and that this is then indeed emblematic of, if not their own personal behavior, their moral system.
My BS-o-meter is registering medium to high likelihood of BS on that story.
The Yale Daily News has it here.
It could be fake, but given that its about an apparently real "art" show to take place on campus and intended to feature , it would be weird to fake it.
Doesn't matter how long the egg was fertilized before everyone condemns this as immoral? I mean, if she gets inseminated, and then within two days the egg dies, I really can't see whats so immoral about preventing literally a clump of cells from becoming an adult.
Or does this story have so many conservative bogeymen--artists, pro-choicers, and Ivy League institutions--that they can't resist having a conniption?
Agreed. The 'mainstream' pro-choice opinion (which I more or less share), is that abortion is unfortunate but given the alternatives, necessary. This, on the other hand, celebrates abortion, not choice, which is what makes us all so uncomfortable.
Freddie brings up an important meta-issue. In abortion, as well as gun control, the environment, corporate taxation, free trade, immigration, and any other US issue - and as far as I know, probably any hot topic in politics worldwide - each side seems to get most of its drive from pointing out the demons on the other side, as if they are the typical case. Gun nuts want everyone to have a nuke! Gays want to destroy marriage! Environmentalists want to turn us all into hippie commune farmers!
Not that it's that overt, most of the time. But really, it's getting to where I don't have to wait long on my favorite blogs to see some red meat prance by. And sure, it's fun sometimes to have a good jabfest, but I know a lot of people take it seriously, and I wonder how much damage that's causing to real debate.
How many times have we seen discussions where someone inappropriately uses a reductio ad absurdum? And how many times have we seen proponents of one side of an issue fail to disavow their more extreme "friends", or spend an inordinate amount of time on said disavowal? If they don't, how often do we just assume they feel the same way? (And how often are we right?)
"To the extent that they aren't forthcoming, we may assume that pro-choicers do not, in fact, disapprove (which would be consistent with the clump-of-cells rhetoric), and that this is then indeed emblematic of, if not their own personal behavior, their moral system."
Ah yes the you must deny this or you support it trope. Which Rob is a common and asinine tactic. Pro-life organizations don't have time to denounce every single idiotic act. The idea that if you don't denounce someone (Harry Belafonte comments for example) that you agree with their beliefs is fucking idiotic.
I mean, if she gets inseminated, and then within two days the egg dies, I really can't see whats so immoral about preventing literally a clump of cells from becoming an adult.
Agreed, but that could hardly be described as a "miscarriage" either. More like, so far as it would be possible for anyone to tell, "menstruation."
She proposes to show videos of her miscarriages occurring in her bathroom tub. I presume these videos clear up your question.
I, for my part, have no intention of resisting having a conniption, because this seems to deserve it. I will, however, defer the conniption until the facts are more fully developed.
1. I'm not aware that the pro-life movement has averred itself of numerous opportunities to denounce the murder of doctors, Rob. As I indicated, that's not necessary to prove that the movement doesn't condone those murders; but fair is fair.
2. I agree, Paul-- we too often use the loons on either side to condemn the larger whole. I'm guilty of that too often to have the authority to complain about it too vociferously.
3. A little research leads me to believe that this is quite probably a hoax.
Pro-choice is a misnomer. There is nothing about death that gives more choices.
The idea that if you don't denounce someone (Harry Belafonte comments for example) that you agree with their beliefs is fucking idiotic.
I'm not inclined to disagree with that statement as on principle, but as a matter of real-life politics, you are expected to disavow the extremists on your side. Pro-lifers do condemn clinic bombings, Mormons do condemn polygamists, and Muslims do condemn terrorists--and in each case, such condemnations are expected and demanded.
I grant that it's kind of a dumb rule, but it is a rule of American politics, and as such it should be applied evenhandedly.
Besides which, people are always prattling about the need for us to find common ground even with our opponents. If we can't find some common ground condemning this twit then I suspect there isn't much to be found.
It's reassuring to me how many commenters/bloggers find this to be a hoax. I agree.
'm not aware that the pro-life movement has averred itself of numerous opportunities to denounce the murder of doctors, Rob.
I've seen them get asked about it by reporters, like after the Eric Rudolph sentencing. But all I'm asking for is equal treatment; if my memory of those interviews is faulty and pro-lifers aren't asked or expected to condemn clinic bombers, then there's no reason for pro-choicers to get asked to do it either.
Here's hoping this is a hoax. But if so, it will be outed very soon, which makes it kind of stupid to try to pull it off.
Ok, I'm pro-choice, but even I think that's pretty sick/twisted. I mean, I'm mostly pro-choice because I think outlawing would just push it underground and make it less safe. But this... ugh. I guess this just hits on a 'revulsion' factor, not any logical sort of argument.
Freddie, it's pretty standard for mainstream pro-life organizations, and the Catholic church, to condemn clinic bombings, particularly when people are killed or injured. And I'm pretty sure that if they didn't, pro-choicers would accuse them of secretly sympathizing.
I'm pro choice, and I'm certainly not trying to tar the movement with this woman's actions. I'm just saying that it doesn't help when people do this kind of thing. Aren't abortion rights in enough danger already without this twit throwing fuel on the fire?
I'm just confused that anyone thinks this is art. It's a controversial political statement, clearly. But isn't art supposed to contain an element of beauty? At the very least, shouldn't it develop an idea? There's nothing beautiful about this, and there isn't any interesting idea behind it either. It's just deliberately provocative and a little bit irritating.
tRickm wrote: Doesn't matter how long the egg was fertilized before everyone condemns this as immoral? I mean, if she gets inseminated, and then within two days the egg dies, I really can't see whats so immoral about preventing literally a clump of cells from becoming an adult.
I hear that if you shout really loud to your right, an echo sometimes bounces off of Margaret Sanger. Please refer back to the part where she allegedly did it itentionally and repeatedly purely for the sake of causing an abortion, filmed the results, and then intends to display them as art. Note, also, that this will likely cause unnecessary policy damage to positions that you apparently support.
Rickm wrote: Or does this story have so many conservative bogeymen--artists, pro-choicers, and Ivy League institutions--that they can't resist having a conniption?
Well, I suppose if one is going to have a conniption fit, it is at least proper to have that many sworn enemies at stake as well as a grotesque display of obscenity involving abortifascients and body fluids. As compared to, say, the equivalent kind of conniption fit your compatriots seem to have over bland statements of elementary fiduciary logic such as, "The Trust Fund is an accounting fiction."
It's a hoax. Or rather, the news release was the performance, not any actual act.
No, no, no. You do not understand art, Megan. She will employ transgendered homeless people dressed in burkas (using grant money) to transcribe the Protocols using quill pens (plucked from live geese) dipped in menstrual blood, on stretched untanned animal skins, in order to explore late-capitalist Western culture's complex relationship with religious minorities, womyn, the transgendered and animals.
Or something like that. It's so hard to keep up.
I suspected it was a hoax. She's actually performed a brilliant work of satire in the tradition of Swift's modest proposal, although I doubt that was her intention given the crap she said about "draw[ing] attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body".
Unintentional self satire would be even richer in comedy, though.
Your update leans perilously towards Godwin's Law territory....
People, this is something called art. Art is not necessarily real. One of the purposes of modern art is to shock the proletariat. And I can see based on this post that the Yale artist has been quite successful at doing so, suckers.
Well, she got her attention. And now a whole bunch of people think she's a moron. This is not art, it's a stupid prank. I hope that people who think this kind of thing is art will continue to feel free to do it, though, so the rest of us can easily identify them as morons and treat them accordingly.
What a great job, and most of you people are truly rubes.
And you think you are the new "elite"?
No wonder they call you lipstick libertarians.
If you find it revolting, or think that she's a moron or evil, hopefully you will start to realize that abortion itself is revolting, stupid and evil too.
Completely off topic, but I have a question for Megan and readers on the topic of the earlier discussion with Glenn Greenwald. I think Megan's point that not all journalists can be expected to cover serious topics, because the audience doesn't demand it and the information is out there for anyone who wants it makes sense. My question is, are the primary debates an exception? This is a situation where you know lots of people will tune in, and a very limited number of journalists are in a unique position to influence the national debate. In that case, I think we can be justified in severely criticizing them for wasting their opportunity.
Thoughts?
If I were an art professor--if such a thing exists--I'd give this work a C- or B- minus with an emphasis on the minus. This little girl is going to a lot of useless effort of rehash the work of other "controversial" conceptual artists (Kiki Smith-glass sperms, Andres Serrano-"Piss Christ", Marc Quinn-"Self" -a frozen blood sculpture, Chris Ofili -Cow-dung "Madonna". And of course a real original, Chris Burden, who--some 40 years ago--had an assistant shoot him and nail him to a Volkswagen in a series of "danger" works . Actually, there is varying degrees of merit in the works of the artists mentioned above--especially Burden. But as far as I can see this kid at Yale isn't really adding to the work of others as much as repeating it. She probably got into the school as a legacy and if she is trying to demonstrate that a Yale legacy can be be a rank moron...well sorry, that has already been done too...by the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
As for shocking the bourgeoisie? Give me a break...this girl is the bourgeoisie.
If I were an art professor--if such a thing exists--I'd give this work a C- or B- minus with an emphasis on the minus. This little girl is going to a lot of useless effort of rehash the work of other "controversial" conceptual artists (Kiki Smith-glass sperms, Andres Serrano-"Piss Christ", Marc Quinn-"Self" -a frozen blood sculpture, Chris Ofili -Cow-dung "Madonna". And of course a real original, Chris Burden, who--some 40 years ago--had an assistant shoot him and nail him to a Volkswagen in a series of "danger" works. Actually, there is varying degrees of merit in the works of the artists mentioned above--especially Burden. But as far as I can see this kid at Yale isn't really adding to the work of others as much as repeating it. She probably got into the school as a legacy and if she is trying to demonstrate that a Yale legacy can be be a rank moron...well sorry, that has already been done too...by the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
As for shocking the bourgeoisie? Give me a break...this girl is the bourgeoisie.
My question is, are the primary debates an exception? This is a situation where you know lots of people will tune in, and a very limited number of journalists are in a unique position to influence the national debate. In that case, I think we can be justified in severely criticizing them for wasting their opportunity.
Thoughts?
Posted by Jacob | April 17, 2008 9:34 PM
Jacob,
You'd have to wonder why either political party, (D) or (R), would still business with such outlets..
Past that, what does the 'Update:', in the post, mean?
Megan, what is your purpose at the Atlantic? Here I was under the impression that you were an economics correspondent. Or are you just an exposed nerve ending? If so, then I think I have a toothache.
People, this is something called art.
"And hillbillies prefer to be called Sons of the Soil. But it's not going to happen."
-- Dr. Julius Hibbert
Art is not necessarily real.
So, say, a frustrated literary expression by one party involving the premptive and creative application of a 5cm x 10cm construction member to other parties having previously issued their own insinuations of an interest in violence against the community...could not possibly be construed as a legitimate cause for harrassing the former party for the next three years. Right?
One of the purposes of modern art is to shock the proletariat.
So if she had proposed to shock the proletariat even more by doing the fingerpainting on a nude statue of MLK Jr. while dressed in a Klan hood, you would be okay with that, too?
MEH,
What 'Update'?
Jacob,
this one: Update Ah, not actually thoroughly amoral, just someone whose moral sense is sufficiently stunted that she thinks there is something surprising and "ambiguous" about the general public's reaction to the idea of deliberately creating a fetus for the purpose of fingerpainting with its blood. Presumably for her follow up she will reprint the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in crayon in order to explore western culture's complex relationship with religious minorities.
She did not artificially inseminate herself, and did not actually have any abortions. The whole thing is a put-on.
Statement by Helaine S. Klasky — Yale University, Spokesperson, New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008: "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."
Given this fact, it should be clear to everyone here that this art project is just as likely to be a pro-life statement as a pro-choice one. Shvarts is taking the pro-choice position to the absurd limit: if abortions are not immoral, is it okay to deliberately impregnate yourself in order to paint with your fetus's blood? What is it that makes us uncomfortable with this idea, even if we're pro-choice? Why do some things feel "yucky"? And so on.
I'm not saying it's a particularly good art project, but the misinterpretation that's being repeated here is unbelievably dense.
Jay, I love how you claim to have the qualifications of an art professor without knowing if such a thing actually exists.
I also love how you lambaste her for not being as original as highly famous artists. I suppose you're going to attack the trumpeters at Yale for not being as good as Miles Davis next.
And yes, there are people in college that teach art classes. Some might call them art professors, much as some might call you an ignorant, self-important dolt.
This was a fantastic stunt.
Art? Stunt? What's the difference? The only bad thing about it is that it was never allowed to stew more than a few hours.
I can't decide which piece of performance art is superior: the artist's work or the showy, impotent outrage to it on display from Miss McArdle and some of the commentators here. Beautiful, beautiful stuff. Give the girl a grant.
Mouse, why don't you just admit that you simply fell for a college girl's prank. I know I'm laughing--HAR De HAR HAR. You see, I had the intellect to realize it was a hoax. Then I spent my very valuable time warning you less prescient creatures to not believe that what Megan was writing about was true. I warned you all of you that it was a hoax. And I of course was correct.
Mousy, you owe me an apology. I'm waiting for it. By the way, did you know I just got a job offer in Colorado. I'm thinking about taking it, but I'd need to find a good woman first, Mousy, you must know real girls living in Colorado who are to hook into relationships. I might need your help.
Mouse, put together 8X10 cards from your hot friends, with telephone numbers, email, addresses, etc. NEED TO KNOW what theY like to do and AND HOW OFTEN, along with what they had to do. Once I get these I can cull down the appliccants.
This sounds great. That you and thank all of you. I'd let like to get DATENIGHT I started next Teusady. BUT WTF
An "artist" who confuses freedom of conscience with freedom from conscience.
Huh, funny. And here I was, thinking that adult people already understood that "freedom" means that at least some people are going to do things with their freedom that you, personally, aren't going to like.
Chet: And here I was thinking that adult people also understood that 'freedom' means at least some people are going to use their freedom to voice their displeasure when people do things that they, personally, don't like.
Freedom of speech is the freedom of expression, not freedom from criticism.
If you think that the people who thought this was real are the people ultimately being mocked by this work, I contend that you do not have a good grasp of satire.
When Swift penned his Modest Proposal that the Irish poor could earn money selling their babies for food, no doubt there were suckers who thought it was serious (and it was presented as being a serious pamphlet). But everyone understands that the people being mocked by Swift were not people who took the proposal seriously and were shocked; the people being mocked where the people who viewed the poor as being a commodity.
Similarly, the people who are really mocked by this work are not the conservatives who were shocked by it, despite what the author may intend.
You were dumb enough to write about it, huh Meg?
Freedom of speech is the freedom of expression, not freedom from criticism.
So let's have criticism of the expression, then, not the implication that the expressor is a sociopath. I can tell the difference between speech meant as a response, and speech meant to get someone to shut up. I wonder why you can't.
Chet: I've seen more than a few lefties implying (or literally stating) that Bush is a sociopath. I'm just wondering, do you consider that to be an anti-free speech statement meant to get someone to shut up, rather than them exercising their freedom of speech?
I can tell the difference between speech meant as a response, and speech meant to get someone to shut up.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to get someone to shut up, as long as there is no violence involved.
If, as brooksfoe suggests, this is a work of pro-life satire, then it's just as bad for them as it would have been for the reverse. Beyond the pale tastelessness doesn't really advance your point regardless of how "right" you might be.
Chet: I've seen more than a few lefties imply (or literally state) that Bush is a sociopath. I'm just wondering if you consider that to be an anti-free speech response meant to get someone to shut up, or them exercising their freedom of expression?
Beyond the pale tastelessness doesn't really advance your point regardless of how "right" you might be.
There's no point to advance, no "right" or "wrong" worthy of debating. That's your misconception. The subject of this woman's project is you--you and the other commentators who queued up to denounce this apparent affront to your value systems. You--your performance--is her thesis. And it was a very good performance. I was entertained.
There's no point to advance, no "right" or "wrong" worthy of debating. That's your misconception. The subject of this woman's project is you--you and the other commentators who queued up to denounce this apparent affront to your value systems. You--your performance--is her thesis. And it was a very good performance. I was entertained.
I agree that the hoax was brilliant, but I think it's your misconception that there is no "right" or "wrong" concerning this project that was worthy of debating. That's a very glib dismissal; we can easily discuss what sort of reactions the work caused and what they mean.
For example, most reactions to the work were that the idea of deliberately conceiving for the purpose of having repeated abortions was repulsive. I have avoided coming to a position on abortion because there was no objective standard by which I could decide the moral status of a fetus, which meant I also tended to think of it as morally neutral. When I felt repulsed by the project, I felt like I needed to rethink my position on whether this was so. Viewing this work made me feel more like abortions can be irresponsible. I can't think of how anyone would gain a more positive view of freely available abortions from this work.
Another reaction to the work I had was that it caused me to reflect on the current status of the art world. How much has art changed from a search for the aesthetic that this crude and revolting idea might be considered a plausible art work?
MC, don't you even consider the possibility that your strong reaction to the work, leading to serious reflection about the nature of repulsion and ultimately resulting in a greater sense that abortions can be irresponsible, was EXACTLY the kind of reaction the artist was hoping to stimulate? I would strongly suspect that she would be happy to read your response and would feel that her work was doing just what it was supposed to -- to disturb people, make them think about both the moral and the aesthetic or even physical components of their reactions to images and ideas about bodies and moral issues, to present them with material that drives them into this kind of wrestling match with truth and feeling.
And if you don't think that images of death, innards, the body, the grotesque, etc. are "aesthetic", you need to look at more of the classical painting of the Renaissance.
brooksfoe, I don't know what reaction the artist was hoping to stimulate, although there was a video of her apparently railing against "patriarchal heteronormativity" or something (I haven't watched it yet), which hints at what her political views and intentions might be.
I'm not saying that images of "death, innards, the body, the grotesque" are necessarily unaesthetic, and I agree with you that classical Renaissance paintings on those subjects can be aesthetic - that's kind of my point. Those painters painted unaesthetic subjects yet rendered them aesthetically. That's not what we see in the work proposed in this hoax and in many other modern works such as pisschrist and the Duchamp's urinal. Here the aesthetic is deliberately rejected.
No, I don't agree. I vehemently disagree about 'Piss Christ', which is a conventionally beautiful photograph. And I strongly disagree that Duchamp's urinal "rejects the aesthetic". It rejects some aesthetics and promotes others. Saying it "rejects the aesthetic" is like saying Johnny Rotten rejected the aesthetic. Which is silly. Punk rock, situationist art, etc. have their own aesthetics.
We might have to disagree, then, especially on Duchamp's urinal. I can't think of a more blatant rejection of the aesthetic than displaying an off the shelf urinal designed by some nobody and calling it artistic. It's a deliberate attempt to find and display something with minimal aesthetic appeal, like the squalor of piss christ or displaying one's own abortions. Maybe we could compromise and call it a rejection of conventional aesthetics?
Yes, it was a hoax, but I don't see anything immoral about it even if it were real. Disgusting, yes (I'd find any art made with blood or other bodily fluids pretty disgusting), and stupid (what kind of idiot has an herbal abortion instead of going to a clinic) but IMO a fetus is just a clump of cells, and being disgusting doesn't make a thing immoral.
Well, the word "conventional" kind of begs the question, since one moment's rebellion is the next moment's conventionality. Duchamp's urinal is certainly by now conventional, and while it was unconventional at the time, so was Manet in his time. And in fact what Shvarts did here is extremely conventional within a certain performance art tradition, as I'm sure you would agree, so in that sense it is embracing a conventional aesthetic.
You may not like that aesthetic, but that's a different point.
It's the oldest dodge in the book: announce you're going to do something "shocking", wait for the squares to get ticked off, then smugly intone that their outrage was the real "art project." It's a lot easier than actually having artistic talent, I guess.
So if she had proposed to shock the proletariat even more by doing the fingerpainting on a nude statue of MLK Jr. while dressed in a Klan hood, you would be okay with that, too?
She would probably be shot to death in the streets if she tried such a thing. Seriously.
If you think that the people who thought this was real are the people ultimately being mocked by this work, I contend that you do not have a good grasp of satire...
But everyone understands that the people being mocked by Swift were not people who took the proposal seriously and were shocked; the people being mocked where the people who viewed the poor as being a commodity.
Similarly, the people who are really mocked by this work are not the conservatives who were shocked by it, despite what the author may intend.
Posted by MC
Yeah! You tell 'em, MC Hammer! Just don't hurt 'em. And who would that be who viewed the poor as a commodity? You ponce. It sucks to be mocked but it's worse to open your mouth and make a mockery of yourself. We enjoy it!
I don't see anything immoral about it even if it were real.
...And my earlier point about the pro-choice movement's moral universe is made.
her work was doing just what it was supposed to -- to disturb people,
And we come to the crux of what I hate about art. Anger and disgust and "disturbance," so to speak, are easy. Causing an equally powerful response of, say, awe or attraction is much, much harder. But somebody, somewhere, decided that "strong reactions" (rather than, say, positive reactiosn) are what make something "art"; so naturally everyone reaches for the easiest route to strong reactions.
Speaking strictly for myself, she hasn't changed my mind, or even gotten me to think at all, about abortion. But I didn't like abortion to begin with.
The subject of this woman's project is you
I'd have been much more impressed if she had chisled a nude of me out of marble. Although we could debate whether this would have been an aesthetic improvement.
I have a brother-in-law who'll sometimes play the "Hey, what's that on your shirt" trick on my kids (they look down, he flicks their nose). I don't consider him to be an artist. Nor would I consider any bystander who might mock my kids for falling for it to be a sophisticated connoisseur of art.
I just feel bad for people who are so willing to sacrifice the long-term value of trust for the short-term thrill of ridicule. (Well, if they're ridiculing _me_ then I might be pretty pissed also.)
So pushing people's buttons is art?
Dang. A four-year old can do that.
"So pushing people's buttons is art?
Dang. A four-year old can do that."
Posted by Sweet Lou
Only if they didn't know the buttons were there. I think we all knew we had these buttons.
"So pushing people's buttons is art?
Posted by Sweet Lou
Only if they didn't know the buttons were there. I think we all knew we had these buttons.
So fake press releases are now a form of performance art?
Can pump-and-dump stock schemers use that as a defense?
Can pump-and-dump stock schemers use that as a defense?
Now, see, thats creativity right there. Hey, I was just exploring the ambiguity that surrounds our relationship with money! I wanted to start a national conversation about option valuation!
I suppose most people just won't/don't get it.
Art isn't always pretty. Art isn't always about the beautiful. It can be. And there isn't anything wrong with Art that is designed to please.
Art has a broader definition, and the most important one is 'to make people think'. In a strange perverse way, She pulled off a Troll/Flamebait combo. Are you reacting because you think abortion is evil and think she did something incredibly horrible? Are you reacting because you think such public displays are distasteful and not fit for public display discussion (are you a ... prude?). Are you pro choice and reacting because you don't want to actually see what something dead looks like?
Who knows why people reacted the way the did, but the purpose was to make them think.
The failure, if there is one, was that people were too busy trying to attack the messenger, rather than examine the message, which is a bit of a cop out. Saying what she did was horrible and in bad taste without explaining why, is keep the debate superficial and not examining the deeper layers. But that's the risk with any shock art.
I'm sorry, but decrying or banning this would require decrying or banning GG Allen, Lenny Bruce, Myra Portrait, and many other pieces that are offensive or disturbing to this group or that group. Though, if it meant banning House of 1000 corpses or Van Helsing, maybe it wouldn't be a total loss. >:D
(sarcasm)
Of course we could always simply follow China's lead and ban it.
(/sarcasm)
Mark,
"Of course we could always simply follow China's lead and ban it."
sarcasm aside, we Are following China's lead.
See: Military Commissions Act of 2006
and a list of EO's from ~10990 through ~11000
EO= Executive Order
Rob, if you don't like this kind of art, that's fine. What's silly is to claim that this is somehow not art, or that there is some way in which the existence of this kind of art proves that the art world has become unmoored from those fixed bearings which made it great back when blah blah blah.
Look, you don't know much about modern art or performance art and you haven't invested the effort necessary to understand it. That's fine. But you are no more equipped to critique it than I am equipped to critique a Beijing opera performance. There used to be a class of white guy who would say "rap music isn't music". That was clearly wrong in the same sense in which the things you're saying about art are wrong here.
I'm a traditionalist. Shock art isn't art. It's the pathetic mewlings of a wanna-be poseur jumping up and down screaming LOOK AT ME. You're making me "think", right? So does the nearest mugger, and the only impulse I duly have in his direction is the sophisticated application of a 2 x 4.
If this idiot wants to continue in this vein, I suggest her next "art project" be starving herself to death, to "demonstrate the cheap tawdriness of self-martyrs."
Feh.
And brooksfoe, I put "found objects", most so-called "modern art", and any so-called "art" that has a diatribe attached to it in the same wastebasket. Most so-called artists remind me nothing more than a four-year old in a tantrum, yelling, drumming their fists and feet on the floor, screaming "YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!"
If there isn't a single line, note, or whatever in the artist's creation that demonstrates the mastery of skill and experience of long practice over many years to gain that skill, then it's not something I'm interested in and the "artist" is wasting my time.
What's silly is to claim that this is somehow not art, or that there is some way in which the existence of this kind of art proves that the art world has become unmoored from those fixed bearings which made it great back when blah blah blah.
1) Yeah, well, quote from where I say this, please. What I said was, if "strong reactions" are what makes "art," then shock is a cheap and easy route to getting them, and ought to be discounted because of that easiness. Taking the easy way out is a route to real greatness in engineering, but not so much in most other fields. I think this qualifies as substantive art criticism, even if I didn't say "heteronormative ontology." But if you like, I'll try to work that into the next round of art discussion around here.
2) Are you seriously suggesting that there is a priestly caste which alone is qualified to decide what is and isn't art? If I found you someone with a clerical beret denoting an appropriate rank, would you take her seriously when she said this wasn't art?
3) I will fearlessly state that my longstanding suspicion is that Bejing opera is the product of a decadant arts culture that mistook hideous atonality as innovation and originality--much as our culture does with disgust and bodily fluids. Maybe one's perception of tonality really is determined by culture, I don't know, but I like Tuvan throat singers too much to fully buy into that.
4) Rap is both a real musical innovation and a medium which requires real talent. I don't like the aesthetic, but I don't deny that there is one.
5) If I'm wrong as you suggest, then kindly explain why rather than pointing out that I'm not approved by the Art Pope.
2) Are you seriously suggesting that there is a priestly caste which alone is qualified to decide what is and isn't art?
No, Rob, exactly the opposite. This is art because the person who made it called it art and put it on display in an art show. Further evidence that it is art: it was produced as part of a thesis show at a school of art, and is being critiqued by a lot of artists, art students, and art professors. For that matter, what my 5-year-old makes in art class is art, too. For various reasons, it's not art that deserves a whole lot of critical attention from anyone except her parents and teachers. And, similarly, you can make your case that this is a bad piece of art.
I am, however, saying that if you're not at all familiar with any of the reference points that structure a particular genre of art, your criticism of a piece of that art probably isn't very solid. Medieval Russians would have considered Leonardo's paintings ugly and warped because they weren't familiar with vanishing-point perspective. Renaissance Italians no doubt returned the favor towards Russian icons.
You're right that you didn't really argue, though, that it's not art. I read this: But somebody, somewhere, decided that "strong reactions" (rather than, say, positive reactiosn) are what make something "art"; as implying that this work isn't art. Which isn't really what it argues.
I do think, however, that you're wrong here. I don't believe you have seen Shvarts's work, am I right? And I do not think it is possible to render a judgment on a piece like this without seeing it. About eight years ago, at PS1 I think, I saw a really striking piece by a Hungarian artist who made herself a prosthetic penis, taped her tits down, and managed to hang out in Budapest bath houses while passing as a man. She videotaped interactions with hidden cameras, concealing people's faces for privacy reasons. Now, just hearing this, you have no idea whether or not that piece was any good. As it happens, it was really interesting -- the character of the interactions were really interesting. Even though it could easily have been just a crappy reality TV show. But you can't tell until you see this kind of thing, any more than you can tell whether a movie is good or bad just by knowing that it's about gangsters and has lots of gruesome violence, or whatever.
3) I will fearlessly state that my longstanding suspicion is that Bejing opera is the product of a decadant arts culture that mistook hideous atonality as innovation and originality--much as our culture does with disgust and bodily fluids.
And coming back to this: You really, really do not want to use a phrase like "decadent arts culture". It puts you in very bad company. Second, Chinese opera is not atonal. It does not use the European 12-tone scale. Third, "innovation and originality" are not usually the driving values in premodern East Asian arts, and while I know almost nothing about Chinese opera, I would be shocked if it had developed through the striving of artists for innovation and originality.
There are African drum rhythms that sound, literally, like cacophony to us. The reason is that we're not good enough to hear them. They're six over thirteen rhythms, or other such figures that are simply too hard for us Westerners to grasp. I mean, I used to hear this one rhythm all the time at funerals when I lived in Africa, and I thought it was just two different drummers flailing away in completely different rhythms, uncoordinated. And then I read a book by an ethnomusicologist who had worked it out and noted it down. It's one rhythm; it's a classic, it has a name in Ghanaian drumming, and he was taught it by his teacher.
Performance art works in the medium of the empathetic social space between the performer and the viewer. You may look at how the audience deals with its empathy towards someone it sees experiencing pain, how that's complicated when that pain is self-inflicted, what kind of person the performer presents themselves as. That question of the assumption of identity is really central, and it's why a lot of performance art is sort of like acting untethered from any fixed plot. The ways the performer seeks out and manipulates those reactions and borderlines may be skillful, or they may be obvious and tedious. In this case, the performer is taking up an identity that calls on myths like blood libel and witchcraft, and works on how the audience feels compelled to intervene in her bodily affairs when it is told a particular kind of story. Could be interesting. Could suck. I haven't seen the piece.
I wrote a long comment that my computer ate. Sorry. Shortest version:
I do not think it is possible to render a judgment on a piece like this without seeing it.
And I would be, so to speak, shocked if seeing it changed my opinion. Upsetting the rubes (in which catagory I cheefully claim membership) is the very definition of tedious and boring. Being an art major insteat of Ozzy Osborne doesn't magaically make it intersting.
I recommend Norah Vincent's Self-Made Man to you, BTW.
This is art because the person who made it called it art and put it on display in an art show.
So...you're saying the art world has no standards whatsoever? Doesn't that but you in rather bad company?
Chet: I've seen more than a few lefties imply (or literally state) that Bush is a sociopath. I'm just wondering if you consider that to be an anti-free speech response meant to get someone to shut up, or them exercising their freedom of expression?
I don't even know how to respond to something so stupid.
brooksfoe, perhaps I can illustrate my complaint here: compare the famous Psycho shower scene to a slasher flick. Both evoke some fairly strong reactions. One does it skillfully, the other in a cheap and easy way.
In our last go round on modern art, Freddie (I think) mentioned a giant pile of candy whose gradual consumption by museum visitors is intended to represent the AIDS-related weight loss of a now-dead man. That, to me, is a deeply creepy and disturbing work; I don't think I'd be willing to eat a piece of that pile. But Ms. Svarts' work is in the same vein, but more closely resembles Saw III than anything else.