It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion a medium for art, political discourse(You will never believe this one!) * WARNING *

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement

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 goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

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.

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.


yaledailynews.com...

I'm speechless, I'm sure this will create a uproar. I will assume this is covered under freedom of speech. Is this really Art?

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Define "art."

Personally, I find it gross. So my solution? I don't go to look at it. Simple 'nuff.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Due to a spike in web traffic, the story on which you have clicked will be displayed temporarily as plain text. To visit the full version of our site, please .....


The uproar has already started.


Here is the new link

yaledailynews.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I wouldn't go to it, either. And I try to stay away from the body fluids of strangers. Call me old school.


This isn't art, after all, it's propaganda. What "virtuosity" does the artist display? Her ability to splatter afterbirth in more aethetically pleasing patterns? Or is it merely "innovation" and "le Grand Guignol" that is being celebrated here?

I won't buy any of it. My workspace is mostly in blues and beige; that much red would really clash. Does she do anything in winter colors?

Again, call me old school.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I apologize in advance to my fellow artists (I am a writer), but I find this concept disgusting. A truly artistic soul draws a line between true art and morbidly bad taste.

This is not art. This is politics.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
WARNING THIS POST HAS GRAPHIC LANGUAGE TO MAKE A POINT!!!

This is what the world/society has become. We have destroyed the first amendment, because we somehow over time believe our founders meant we should be able to say ANYTHING and get away with it. NOT TRUE...but now not only are we trying to say anything, we are slowly finding ways to do certain acts and claim it to be "free speech". Its sad, sick, and quite pathetic! Yet we as THE PEOPLE allow this crap..and then actually wonder why our socity acts the way they do and we deal with the things we deal with.

HOW BOUT THIS...

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/17/08 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
'Art' is subjective.

I prefer to define it as gross, immoral, and devoid of any feelings for other life.

As Fox said above, I don't have to see it. My only concern is, was it in any way subsidized by my tax dollars? I certainly don't want to pay for it.

edit to add:
On the other hand, I sorta think rcwj75's description above would be artistic. Can we get some federal art subsidy to pay him for it?

TheRedneck


[edit on 17-4-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I feel cheated. This is a total rip off of my non-Ivy art project where I ate undercooked corn omlets and 3-4 pounds of SPAM per day for a week and then purged with Ex-lax (before they took out the good stuff and went natural) and sculptured in facimilies of Mount Rushmore. Seriously...


How did she "artifically inseminated" herself? A Turkey baster?

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
What a wretch she can only waste her body to attract eye balls from other. It's definitely NOT art. Art should bring sense of beauty to touch ones' soul.

All this "pushing herself to be pregnant and then forcing abortion" is a blasphemy to human beings' basic abilities.

I am very sorry to see this happen. Please, don't do these stupid things again, it will only cause disgust and pitying looks on you~



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The MODS and members proved my point. The idea I had for my "ART" exhibit has now been deleted. And I have recieved U2U's saying it was sick, what I had posted. So where is my artisitic free speech..lol.

So why can't people stand up and do the same thing in REAL LIFE???? Here on a website people are all about "rules" "moderation" and giving their two cents....so I simply post WORDS and get it removed/emails yet this women IN REAL LIFE is actually doing this and all society is going to do is bitch about it...NO ACTION.

SAD SAD SAD that a website is watched over more then the world we actually have to live in and be a part of (influenced by)...don't you think?

As for those who emailed me, cmon..you people really need to check yourself if you thought I was serious about the "art" / actions I posted....it was an example of the sick BS our world has accepted as long as it's under the catagory "ART"!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
With all that blood everywhere, shouldn't the Dept. of Public Health be investigating for some kind of violation? Just reading this story make me wanna grab a bottle of Purell.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I was thinking she also took herbal drugs to induce a abortion. For some reason this sound fishy. And they don't even address one question I have. How soon is it possible to get pregnant after a miscarriage? I'm no medical expert, but you can't get pregnant immediately after a miscarriage, can you? Can one day you misscarriage then the next day pregant? Any anyone confirm or deny this?



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Seems like she decided to follow this fellow "artist".

Sorry, but this is not art. Be warned, its VERY graphic...and sick...




www.sfweekly.com...
[/e



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Yeah its disgusting. She abuses the right to control her own body, and she mocked women who want children but miscarry. Also, even if this is NOT fake, it is ugly and stupid and betrays the ultimate aesthetic vacuousness of the art world today. She's nothing but a shock artist like shock jocks Howard Stern and Imus they never once played a record.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Master_Wii]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
According to my definition of art (something that has no other use than that of being seen, heard, etc.) this is obviously art.

And art is not limited to the beautiful and nice, art is just the way the artist found to express himself/herself.

Is this type of art of bad taste? Yes, cannibal movies from the 70s are also of bad taste and art.

rcwj75
People can do in real life the same as they do here on ATS, but you have to remember that ATS is not the same as public place, ATS has admission rules, and in the same way galleries have refused to show some art pieces.

Master_Wii
As far as I know (I am not an expert about it), the woman only needs to be in a fertile period to pregnant. When pregnant, the fertile periods stops (to avoid more than one pregnancy at the same time), so, after an abortion she had to wait for her body to return to its normal conditions for her to get pregnant, but I don't have any idea of how long this could be.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Ive been in great thought about this. No one believe that abortion is inherently a good thing.

She could have accomplished the same thing by going to a clinic and getting fetal remains with the consent of the doctors and patients.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
'Art' is subjective.

Yes.

But what she did to her body is dangerous. And her complete lack of self control is probably BEYOND border-personality. It's really mean and shows a lack of compassion for those who have lost children through miscarriage.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
As a huge critic of censorship, I say this to you all...

Let her do this. She wants an outcry. If she gets no response from anyone, she will have not proven anything. So even talking about it is furthering her agenda with this.

She must be allowed to do what she wants, but we don't have to support it. Even bad press is good press.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I find it amusing and puzzling that people on this thread claim to be artists and in the same breath condemn this piece and attempt to classify it as "not art". Art is not "your art" or "my art", art is art. Just because you don't like it means nothing except that you don't like it. You don't have to like it.

@ Master_Will
How can you "abuse the right" to control your own body? Doesn't that right exist as a right free of condition? And why do you care what she does with her body? How is this of your concern?

Some people might consider smoking and drinking alcohol destructive to the body. I would argue that alcoholics and obese people do more harm to their bodies than this girl is doing, and much greater harm to society and they aren't even making a point. At least this girl is sparking discussion, controversy, inquiry.



[edit on 17-4-2008 by urbal]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join