Abortion Art
I guess this is linked to children..

Some of you may have heard about this, there may even be a thread lurking around somewhere about it that I'm too lazy to find.
Anyway, there's an art student in America called Aliza Shvarts who says she got herself pregnant and induced abortions several times. The resulting blood is forming part of an exhibition.
The university says it's all just performance art, but she insists it's real.
Being a pretentious wanker art student myself, I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this, whether it's real or not.
Conceptual art is obviously about pushing boundaries and shock values, but has she gone too far? Can there ever be a line which artists shouldn't cross?

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/arts/design/19arts-CONTROVERSYO_BRF.html?ref=arts
(reducedfatLOLcat, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:22, 11 replies)

also
There is an artist who tied a dog up to let it die as art.
(fisherOfApples123 -=destroyer of toilets=-, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:23, closed)

Dog
Yes I read about that. And there's no argument there. In my opinion, letting an innocent animal starve to death is not art. It's just sick.
(reducedfatLOLcat, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:26, closed)

And..
Having 7 abortions for a fucking art project isn't?

It's not art, it's bollox....
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:39, closed)

If she actually *did* do this
then yeah she's just fucking mental. Is it even physically possible to get pregnant and miscarry multiple times in a year?
(reducedfatLOLcat, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:48, closed)

Debunking
She's already admitted to the school it was a hoax, and that in itself was part of the ``performance art.'' what a mental case.
(tuqueboy has been in a medically -induced coma since, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 0:59, closed)

line
the line they shouldn't cross is my line of sight
(kris kringle I only posted this message to find out the date on, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 1:15, closed)

Abortion Art
Jeebus, what a load of collocks. The only reason this sort of thing exists is not for the sake of creating challenging art, it's for the sake of creating notoriety for the artist. It's like that fucktard that created the diamond-encrusted skull and sold it for a virtual mint - the selling price might not be an exact redbook price, but he gets to fix the price tag because of the notoriety he's earned from a career of doing stupid boring shite (a dead shark in an aquarium is supposed to pass for art these days? Spare me!)

Leave this sad undergraduate bullshit where it belongs and get a coffee table book by Coop instead or something.
(thanateros Does Not Play Well With Others, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 4:22, closed)

I may have too many opinions, but they are just that...my opinions
My first thought was that this girl is a stupid kid who can't tell the difference between a period and a miscarriage. Does she have the biological or medical knowledge to "artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while taking herbal drugs to induce miscarriages"? Where did she manage to get the sperm? Viable sperm that is not some guy's product of a wanking session. How did she manage to insiminate herself? Did she watch the scene showing the lesbian couple's DIY-artifical insemination by turkey baster in "If These Walls Could Talk 2" one too many times? Does anyone know if there are herbal remedies that accurately induce miscarriage every time? Then I found this article: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ART_HOAX?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US specifically this quote by the 'artist':
"Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether ... there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading," she wrote.

The fact that both pro- and anti-abortion groups are taking this silly little girl seriously only shows their ignorance.

On the subject of conceptual art pushing the boundaries, this bit is something that has always been and will always be the main debating point between conceptual and non-conceptual artists. There are 2 types of art schools and art programs. One type focuses on teaching students actual technique and how to produce a quality product. The other focuses on concept only. I've seen more students come out of conceptual art programs who have interesting ideas, but lack the basic talent and skills to produce a quality piece that not only people want to view, but that people even know what the fuck it is. I have yet to meet a conceptual artist who has any real skill. Obviously my years of study and practical work were in non-conceptual art. And I'm talking about over 10 years of actively producing art that still hangs in people's homes and businesses so I think might have an idea of what is marketable quality.

As far as pushing boundaries and shock value is concerned, in this day and age with sites like rotten.com et al, is it actually possible to shock people anymore? Disgust them, yes. But shock? HIghly doubtful.

So, does the work of this art student actually "spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body." No it does not and it has not.

Will "a cube lined with plastic sheets with a blood-and-petroleum-jelly mixture in between, onto which she would project video footage of herself "experiencing miscarriages in her bathroom tub." convey the idea she is attempting to express? If it does that by itself, why does she feel the need to include "visual representations, a news release and other narrative materials" as well? Perhaps because otherwise, it just looks like a bunch of trash in a cube with a video of a girl writhing about in a bathtub? (No, I haven't seen the video footage, but one can guess at its content)

In my opinion, this is less art and more a silly girl's attempt at 15-minutes of fame. And a crap attempt at that. She does not have the knowledge or skill required to pull this idea off in reality. Even if she was able to do so, it shows her lack of understanding of her own body and what kind of damage such a project would cause to her own organs. The fact that she gave the following statement shows her ignorance of medical testing capabilities:
"The most poignant aspect of this representation - the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) - is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood," she said.
( flirting with badgers What? It sounded good at the time., Mon 21 Apr 2008, 5:15, closed)

I have seen menstrual "art"
So if that's all she's doing... it's been done.

(It was some lady's filthy sanitary napkins in a glass case in the Pompidou in Paris. No, I wasn't moved; I see that exact thing every month.)
(AlfishKK, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 7:03, closed)

Oh for fucks sake
This isn't even an answer to this weeks question, just a tired excuse to get an argument going.

Story written on the internet != true
( LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 8:34, closed)

in my opinion
the line that artists shouldn't cross lies roughly around 1900.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Mon 21 Apr 2008, 10:12, closed)