Abortion as Art

April 17, 2008 8:41 AM

Abortion as Art To quote: "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."
posted by GuyZero (500 comments total)

WTF?!
posted by illiad at 8:45 AM on April 17

Jeez.

I'm as big a liberal as any, but that is f*cked up. Get thee to a nunnery.
posted by ELF Radio at 8:47 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

Wow. Art truly is dead.
posted by brautigan at 8:47 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

"Our site is temporarily down due to routine server maintenance."

That's a relief...
posted by afx237vi at 8:48 AM on April 17

What an idiot.
posted by waitingtoderail at 8:49 AM on April 17

On the upside, this could not end less well than it was begun.
posted by DU at 8:49 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Maybe you just had to be there
posted by wabbittwax at 8:50 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

As outraged as some were over Piss Christ, one can expect this art project to generate even more outrage.
posted by ericb at 8:52 AM on April 17

I'd give it a C-.
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:52 AM on April 17

I'd give it a C+ if she called it "An Immodest Proposal."
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:53 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Gawker: Weirdest Grossest Abortion Art Project Ever.
posted by ericb at 8:54 AM on April 17

This link worked for me, even though the one in the OP didn't.
posted by Perplexity at 8:56 AM on April 17

WTF indeed.
posted by chunking express at 8:56 AM on April 17

"...Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for 'shock value.' 'I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,' Shvarts said. 'Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.'

...she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to 'provoke inquiry.'

'I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.'"

posted by ericb at 8:56 AM on April 17

I, for one, believe that this will result in mature, reasoned, intelligent debate about the nature of life, and the meaning of art and its place alongside religion in our culture.
posted by Cookiebastard at 8:56 AM on April 17 [40 favorites]

I don't know much about art but I know what I like and I wouldn't hang that in my rumpus room.
posted by mazola at 8:57 AM on April 17 [6 favorites]

Not designed for shock value. Just to provoke a reaction.

What exactly is the difference?
posted by DU at 8:57 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

Uh, huh.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body.

Uh, huh

...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.

OK, this is fucked up.
posted by AD_ at 8:57 AM on April 17

Michelle Malkin: Move over, Jose Serrano and Karen Finley: Here comes blood-smearing Yale art student Aliza Shvarts. Heh!
posted by ericb at 8:59 AM on April 17

It was funnier when William Wegman did it.
posted by docpops at 9:00 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

That is a nice masthead.
posted by JBennett at 9:00 AM on April 17

[epiphany] Hey, maybe Art works just like a Front Page Post in MetaFilter! If its only merit is the discussion that results, you shouldn't be posting/creating it at all... [/epiphany]
posted by alasdair at 9:00 AM on April 17 [10 favorites]

I think it's interesting. Brave, even.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 9:01 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Huh.
I've never wished Choriocarcinoma on anyone before. First time for everything.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 9:02 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

So, like, the human body is a beautiful thing, man.
posted by hellphish at 9:02 AM on April 17

Yale University School of Art website.
posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on April 17

This is so wrong.
posted by oddman at 9:03 AM on April 17

"Its my hot body, I'll do what I want"
posted by clearly at 9:04 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

I, for one, believe that this will result in mature, reasoned, intelligent debate about the nature of life, and the meaning of art and its place alongside religion in our culture.

Just not on the internet.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 9:05 AM on April 17

Murderer
posted by caddis at 9:06 AM on April 17

When Art Becomes Inhuman.
posted by ericb at 9:06 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Serial murder
posted by caddis at 9:06 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

I'm voting fake. Who would ever know if the blood was just menses?
posted by peep at 9:07 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

I'd be interested to hear criticisms of Shavart's work that go beyond "this is fucked up" or "what an idiot." (What's the point, anyhow, of posting such inane criticism on the internet?)

Obviously, if one's pro-life, Shavarts's work is objectionable, just as all abortions are. But if one is "pro-choice", what exactly is the problem here?
posted by washburn at 9:07 AM on April 17

What are the odds this is a hoax?
posted by Nelson at 9:08 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

To: Aliza
From: PlusDistance
Re: The abortifacients

YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

Thank you for your time.
posted by PlusDistance at 9:08 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

"Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process."

That's really gonna take the edge of the free wine and cheese.
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:09 AM on April 17 [16 favorites]

The freaky thing is that this would totally match my couch.
posted by padraigin at 9:10 AM on April 17 [14 favorites]

I made this lovely hat from stem cells.
posted by Dizzy at 9:10 AM on April 17 [7 favorites]

Big thinkers in this thread, I see.

The most telling part of this article was the line about how, according to one person, the artist was "abusing her constitutional right to her body".

That's the crux of the matter, right there.

Also: anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an art class, do a little water color... I don't know. Something.

Carry on.
posted by ewkpates at 9:11 AM on April 17 [6 favorites]

Playing the contrarian, I will say that this is not as bad as skinning a cat alive, videotaping it and calling it "art". Playing the reasonable human being: holy christ, this is not cool.
posted by Lemurrhea at 9:11 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

How does one come to have an idea like this? Did she have an unplanned pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage and think to herself, "hey, this could spark debate! I should do this again!"
posted by wabbittwax at 9:12 AM on April 17

I wonder if it will be displayed next to the longest poop?
posted by anthill at 9:12 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

I can imagine that, yes. Bunch of kids sitting around a table in the dining hall, one them asking "Hey, you guys up for a game of ultimate?", Shvarts being all, "I'd love to, but I'm having another miscarriage this afternoon. Did you guys hear about my important miscarriage project? I'm trying to start a dialogue", everyone else clamming up for a minute or two. I remember conversations like that with art students in college.
posted by Greg Nog at 9:13 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

...also, is this really likely to spark legitimate debate about abortion and a woman's right to her body and the relationship between the body and art? Or is it more likely to spark debate about whether this particular artist is batshit crazy? It seems provocative a propos of nothing.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:14 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

But if one is "pro-choice", what exactly is the problem here?

It's possible to be pro-choice without believing that an abortion is the equivalent of squeezing a pimple. "Safe, legal and rare," as the saying goes.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:15 AM on April 17 [30 favorites]

In all seriousness I think it's fascinating and brave, though I don't agree with her premise and I think she's a little delusional if she thinks she's going to spark much intelligent discourse. But I was similarly idealistic at her age, if not as willing to risk the wrath of my mother over such a project.
posted by padraigin at 9:15 AM on April 17

I'm stunned by this. Even though I hold that art is subjective, and that one is free to view anything they please in the context of art, I can't help but feel every fibre of my being screaming "THIS. IS. WRONG."

Is it art? Sure, if you say it is, but that doesn't mean it is moral or ethical.
posted by owtytrof at 9:16 AM on April 17

I will fire the opening salvo with "crazy"
posted by DoctorFedora at 9:17 AM on April 17

Maybe it's a hoax intended to create a debate which will itself be art...
posted by wabbittwax at 9:17 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Whoops, should have previewed. That was in response to Wabbitwax
posted by DoctorFedora at 9:18 AM on April 17

I was an art major for the first three years of college. Among the reasons I quit the department and ended up with a completely different major was the overwhelming number of my peers that merely wanted to use "art" as a way to piss people off or disgust them. One student decided that he wanted to use a piece of rotting meat covered in maggots as his senior project. He placed his fabulous work of art in a supposedly sealed plexiglass box and proceeded to babble about the rottenness of society and the rotting of the meat as a metaphor. Not too long after his show, the entire building was overrun by big nasty blow flies. Because the dingbat never considered the possiblity that the maggots might get out and turn into flies.

I'm fine with the idea that art can create a dialogue, either between the viewer and the artist or among the viewers. But I'm not fine with art that is solely designed and steered by the artist to create some sort of scripted dialogue. That's not daring, that's not avant-garde, it's just annoying and pretentious and can result in flies.
posted by teleri025 at 9:18 AM on April 17 [23 favorites]

I remember conversations like that with art students in college.

My exact feeling. Is the YDN site just completely banjaxed for anyone else? I can't even get to the site, much less the article.
posted by jessamyn at 9:19 AM on April 17

Actually, I think this is a good and interesting piece, on of the more interesting than I've seen for some time. People upset or condemning this work are doing so out of an assumed framework that abortion is bad, an evil but perhaps sometimes necessary act that should be performed in a solemn, contrite manner, as if publicly bearing shame is a way to displace the sin of the act, and thereby not incur the wrath of spiritual beings.

But what if an abortion were no more significant or sinful an act than brushing your teeth?
posted by cytherea at 9:19 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

But if one is "pro-choice", what exactly is the problem here?

That she got pregnant specifically for the purpose of getting an abortion. Further, that her project has no concrete benefit to human health. You might argue that it's similar to breeding mice, or whatever other animal, specifically for the purpose of killing them during research. If you're against such scientific research, then the argument might end there. But if you believe such research is acceptable because it benefits humans, this project still doesn't really qualify. There's no concrete benefit. The only good it does is "fostering discussion".

I'll point out, this argument is just intended as a start. Mice are alive, but not human. Embryos are arguably not alive, but share some characteristics with humans that should give them some moral standing. My point is just that they're both things that most would agree have some intrinsic moral value. We can't just do whatever we want to them. It wouldn't be right to breed mice just so we could kill them later for art. Similarly, I don't think it's right to intentionally get pregnant only to end the pregnancy for art.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 9:20 AM on April 17 [13 favorites]

Horror movie or pasta sauce commercial?
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 9:21 AM on April 17 [14 favorites]

But regardless of one's opinion on the matter, an abortion or miscarriage is medically nothing like brushing your teeth. It can have lasting physiological effects.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:22 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

My partner and I have been trying for over a year to get pregnant. She's done artificial insemination a dozen times, with only a single miscarriage (very early on) to show for it. We're up to trying in-vitro now.

So seeing someone continuing to inseminate herself often for the purpose of inducing miscarriage really hurts.
posted by evilangela at 9:23 AM on April 17 [6 favorites]

I think it's genius, but only because I am positive she is putting everybody on. Wouldn't chemically aborting God knows how many fetii in rapid succession be spectacularly dangerous to one's body? And wouldn't making "art" with them be an impossibly disgusting process? And smell fucking terrible? Come on: she's completely pwning the art world, and I say go for it. David Cronenberg must be thrilled.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:24 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

This will indeed spark derious debate.
Not about abortion though...more likely it will be used as ammunition to oppose public funding of art.
posted by rocket88 at 9:24 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

seeing someone continuing to inseminate herself often for the purpose of inducing miscarriage really hurts.

Take comfort in the fact that she has likely greatly endangered her chances of ever carrying a pregnancy to term.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:25 AM on April 17

whoops should have previewed that
posted by wabbittwax at 9:25 AM on April 17

Since the link doesn't work, I'm going to assume that the post describing it is completely inaccurate, and that it's actually an article about the sound leaves make in the autumn when you step on them.

Also, the word "art" has no real meaning anyway, so why get upset when someone uses it "wrong?"
posted by The World Famous at 9:25 AM on April 17

How does one come to have an idea like this?

There are lot of precedents. Duchamp's semen, The Vienna Action Group's genital mutilations, Chris Burden's crucifixion on a Volkswagon, Vito Acconci masturbating beneath a gallery floor, Petra Paul's menstrual blood paintings, holding a gun to Marina Abramovic's head, ...
posted by xod at 9:27 AM on April 17 [7 favorites]

This is an obvious hoax. Let's make fun of her.
posted by humanfont at 9:28 AM on April 17

I'm pro-choice, but all that hormone chaos has got to be bad for your body. But really, as much as this feels wrong to me, it's on about the same level as Orlan and her plastic surgery art.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 9:28 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Take comfort in the fact that she has likely greatly endangered her chances of ever carrying a pregnancy to term.
posted by wabbittwax at 11:25 AM on April 17

Huh.
I've never wished Choriocarcinoma on anyone before. First time for everything.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 11:02 AM on April 17

Pointing out that she is being foolish by ignoring the health risks of her project and wishing those risks upon her are very different.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 9:30 AM on April 17 [4 favorites]

Also: anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an art class, do a little water color... I don't know. Something.

So, As long as I call it "art," I can do whatever I want? Sweet!

"And here's my latest piece. I call it 'Four-year-olds hit by sledgehammers.' I'm hoping it will generate a dialog."
posted by JDHarper at 9:30 AM on April 17 [13 favorites]

Oh, so that's the rumbling I heard outside today.

It was the rumbling of a thousand right-wing radio talk show hosts trembling in anticipation of their Big News for today's show.

I fully hope at least 1/8 of them suffer brain aneurysms while going off about it, hoax or no.
posted by Spatch at 9:30 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Embryos are arguably not alive, but share some characteristics with humans that should give them some moral standing. My point is just that they're both things that most would agree have some intrinsic moral value. We can't just do whatever we want to them.

Mission accomplished.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:32 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Well, it certainly provokes a reaction. It doesn't make me think that she's all that interesting as a person or an artist, but it certainly is an interesting activity she has engaged in.

I might be okay with this project. It's fucked up. I'd rather read an interview with her than see the work (which I can't see anyhow, due to server overload), and I'd rather that interview focus on how she feels about the process and not any of her relatively uninteresting spoutings of theory, but I'm okay with it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:33 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

But regardless of one's opinion on the matter, an abortion or miscarriage is medically nothing like brushing your teeth. It can have lasting physiological effects.

So? People drive cars. People fly in airplanes and some jump out. People eat in McDonald's. People sit in front of the computer and TV all day. People do all sorts of things that can have physiological effects. I don't see anything special here.

And wouldn't making "art" with them be an impossibly disgusting process? And smell fucking terrible?

Have you even been in a tanning house? That leather jacket or shoes or purse went through an incredibly disgusting processes, that smelled far, far worse.
posted by cytherea at 9:33 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Using sex, and/or sexual metaphors, devices, objects and imagery, in art is both missing the point AND a cheap shot. Sex, and its associated baggage, is such a loaded subject that you will not be able to get your point across WITHOUT a three page artist statement (something that art should do without anyway) and you'll still piss people off. To use a similie: it's like using a basketball covered in black-paint to talk about african exploitation in american sports. It's weak sauce and does nothing for discourse.

I call her a Troll and be done with it.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 9:34 AM on April 17 [4 favorites]

Simply slapping an Artist's Statement on some really fucked up shit you've done does not make it art.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:34 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

People upset or condemning this work are doing so out of an assumed framework that abortion is bad, an evil but perhaps sometimes necessary act that should be performed in a solemn, contrite manner, as if publicly bearing shame is a way to displace the sin of the act, and thereby not incur the wrath of spiritual beings.

Or, you know, maybe they're annoyed that someone would be so unoriginal as to think that a public display of self-abuse is actually a fantastic idea for an "art" project. I didn't see Yale jumping on the "art" bandwagon when Sid Vicious cut himself on stage or when Lou Reed did innumerable nasty things to himself on stage. And even they were being completely unoriginal (all due respect to Lou Reed). I'm more upset that she is getting any attention and possibly funding for this useless, unoriginal, and self-abusive nonsense.

But what if an abortion were no more significant or sinful an act than brushing your teeth?

Then her project would be no more worthy of attention than a movie of a woman brushing her teeth and a bucket full of toothpaste and saliva that she spat out.
posted by The World Famous at 9:34 AM on April 17 [4 favorites]

I think maybe "art" used to be a word at one time, but now it seems to mean "something which someone (anyone, anywhere) has called or could call... art."

Also, is it my imagination or did there used to be some kind of distinction between "art" and "propaganda"?
posted by prefpara at 9:35 AM on April 17

First thought is hoax, and I'm a'sticking with it.
posted by Shepherd at 9:37 AM on April 17

is it my imagination or did there used to be some kind of distinction between "art" and "propaganda"?

It's most definitely your imagination.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:37 AM on April 17

I think perhaps this is one of the best MetaFilter posts ever. Everything is here. It is the singularity.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:37 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

Have you even been in a tanning house? That leather jacket or shoes or purse went through an incredibly disgusting processes, that smelled far, far worse.

Okay, but the leather isn't comprised of the bloody hide of one's own bloody, aborted fetus! I don't care how kewl and jaded and clove-smokey art school girl here is, you'd have to be pretty much psychotic to fingerpaint with that stuff and not completely lose your shit. It's just not gonna happen. It's a hoax, I'm sorry.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:37 AM on April 17

This art is shocking and provocative but that is not to diminish it. It is not an empty shock to me. It is filled with real and legitimate questions on how abortion and pregnancy works in our society. The way I see it is it is sort of a completly unspoken truce where most Americans don't really like abortion but they get that women generally don't take the decision lightly, they wouldn't get an abortion unless they thought it was really important.

Now in this case a women is getting pregnant and ending the pregnancy for its own sake. The abortion is the point rather than a means to an end (which is vaguely agreed to be having a child later when you can take better care of it) She is asserting and questioning her own right to do this. She is pointing out that this right which is nearly absolute is in a way contingent on the reason behind it. At the same time though, where is the harm? The fetuses were not developed, the body sometimes rejects a fetus. This is a part of life. And what about her feelings, pregnancy is supposed to have a deep bond between the mother and child what is necessary for this to occur? Is this absolute? Is there something wrong when that isn't there? What does she feel about these children, is she a monster for not thinking what we expect?

We have taken a biological reality and built this mythology around it and it might be that the mythology is an important and necessary part of what it is to be human or it might not be, and this art, I think, actually helps us answer this question.
posted by I Foody at 9:38 AM on April 17 [46 favorites]

Then her project would be no more worthy of attention than a movie of a woman brushing her teeth and a bucket full of toothpaste and saliva that she spat out.

Saaaay . . . *applies to Yale*
posted by The Bellman at 9:39 AM on April 17

Attention whore. Give her a reality show! Where's Dr. Phil?
posted by tula at 9:39 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Embryos are arguably not alive, but share some characteristics with humans that should give them some moral standing. My point is just that they're both things that most would agree have some intrinsic moral value. We can't just do whatever we want to them.

So do mice, so do teddy bears, so do mannequins. I don't see how this is an argument for moral standing. People get upset about kitties, doggies, and monkeys being used in medical research or product testing, no one gets upset about little mickey.
posted by cytherea at 9:40 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty darn "liberal" when it comes to abortion and all that, but this rubs me the wrong way, though I'm not entirely sure of the reason why.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:40 AM on April 17

Has anyone ever done a study on how the psychology of progressive abortion nut absolutists mirrors the psychology of conservative gun nut absolutists?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:41 AM on April 17

Hoax, people. Get a grip.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:42 AM on April 17

I for one plan to wait for snopes to get ahold of this before I get too worked up.
posted by TedW at 9:43 AM on April 17

Okay, but the leather isn't comprised of the bloody hide of one's own bloody, aborted fetus!

What about art made from fingernails? Or hair? People do where human hair wigs.

I don't care how kewl and jaded and clove-smokey art school girl here is, you'd have to be pretty much psychotic to fingerpaint with that stuff and not completely lose your shit. It's just not gonna happen. It's a hoax, I'm sorry.

But that's only because you're investing a magical quality to this. If a fetus were viewed in a completely naturalistic way, I don't see why this should be so taboo.
posted by cytherea at 9:44 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Hmmm. . .I find it hard to have a meaningful discussion about this without reading her artist's statement. (A few posters argued that art requiring such statements is weak--that's an interesting discussion, too, but I'll step aside from that one for the moment.)

Um, also:

Metafilter: annoying and pretentious and can result in flies
posted by flotson at 9:45 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

But if one is "pro-choice", what exactly is the problem here?

Because those of us who are pro-choice feel, generally, that women should have the inalienable right to deal with their bodies as they see fit when a pregnancy occurs, whether through misfortune (e.g. rape), accident (e.g. birth control failure), lack of knowledge (e.g. the morally reprehensible abstinence-only sex 'education' programs), health risks, or even when the pregnancy was on purpose but other factors intervened.

Purposely inseminating yourself for the sole purpose of having an abortion doesn't really fit in there.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:46 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Too many art students think that art is all about the statement they're making, instead of the actual piece itself. If there wasn't a huge "making of" tale to go along with this piece, it would be nothing but bloody sheets and some graphic, self-indulgent videos. Inflammatory political statement meant to induce controversy does not equal art.

But what if an abortion were no more significant or sinful an act than brushing your teeth?

I'm pro-choice, but I think that would be a pretty shabby situation. I don't believe in sin, so I have nothing to say about that, but not even thinking twice about the consequences of procreation seems like a shallow sort of mindset. Why can't people just learn to consistently use birth control in the same way they consistently brush their teeth?

Yes, I realize there are accidents, and even with the best of intention or foresight unwanted pregnancies occur. I don't think women need to feel guilty or traumatized about their decision, but I do think one should give a little more consideration to the nuances of the situation that one does when cutting their toenails.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:47 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

DNAB, I think you found why this is rubbing me the wrong way.
Is it possible to feel that way without being a hypocrite, though?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:47 AM on April 17

Even if you think this is legitimate as art, why the hell would you need to do it repeatedly over 9 months? It seems like you would get everything you need for the project the first time.
posted by InfidelZombie at 9:48 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

So much for having lunch today.

There has to be some legal limit to what you can do with your own body.
posted by desjardins at 9:49 AM on April 17

I'm going to do a work on "drinking alcohol" in which I quickly drink to excess every night, then recording myself vomiting into a bucket. The footage of me vomiting, pictures of my bloodshot eyes and burst blood vessels in my face, and the bucket will be part of the exhibit.

We can add this to the existing exhibit and call it "Induced Unfortunate Outcomes."
posted by mikeh at 9:50 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Abortion, like many rights issues, is a weighing of one party's interests against another's. Your right to enjoy a movie trumps my right to yell "fire" in the theatre. My right to swing my fist is denied when your nose is in its path.
For abortion, I believe the mother's rights to quality of life supercede the rights of her unborn fetus. That doesn't mean the fetus shouldn't be considered at all; that it's an inanimate property of its owner. We can support access to abortion and still find this wrong.
posted by rocket88 at 9:50 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Sorry. Until this is utterly-beyond-all-doubt confirmed, I'm camping-out in the "Hoax" camp. It's simply too perfect as fodder for talk-radio and Sunday sermons.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:51 AM on April 17

This Gawker comment almost makes it worth it

Now there is a suitemate from hell. I can just see the passive aggressive notes.

SOMEONE needs to start CLEANING up after their MISCARRIAGES in the bathtub because OTHER PEOPLE USE THE BATHTUB AND DO NOT WANT TO RINSE VISCERA OFF OF THEIR FEET ALL THE TIME. Thank you!!!!

posted by drezdn at 9:51 AM on April 17 [38 favorites]

desjardins, i disagree. perhaps it was intended as snark, but if you want to flagellate yourself with some spiny bits, go right ahead.
posted by craven_morhead at 9:51 AM on April 17

There was this dystopian sci-fi novel from the late 80's, early 90's that I vaguely remember (the plot revolved around a clone of Elvis) which had a character, an artist, who created work like this. In the future society, all abortions were illegal even though the rate of miscarriages and birth defects were very high for natural births. The artist would get pregnant often and would create mournful sculptures out of the fetal remains.

Wonder if she read this obscure book?
posted by pandaharma at 9:53 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

If a fetus were viewed in a completely naturalistic way, I don't see why this should be so taboo.

Because it would still be self-abuse as spectacle.
posted by The World Famous at 9:54 AM on April 17

Teddy bears and mannequins share some characteristics with humans. But very few, or none of those ought to give them any moral standing. The only reason I shouldn't tear up your teddy bear is because it's your teddy bear. This portion of your argument is basically non-sequitur.

I don't see how this is an argument for moral standing. People get upset about kitties, doggies, and monkeys being used in medical research or product testing, no one gets upset about little mickey.

I don't see how this is an argument against moral standing of embryos either. It seems more an argument about animal research, and which animals are okay to experiment on, and which aren't. Please point out why animals sharing characteristics with humans (i.e. life, and others, like intelligence), should give them moral standing, while embryos sharing characteristics with humans (DNA, potential for life, intelligence, others) should not. Or why in neither case those characteristics give them any moral standing.

The way I see it is it is sort of a completly unspoken truce where most Americans don't really like abortion but they get that women generally don't take the decision lightly, they wouldn't get an abortion unless they thought it was really important.

This is what I'm getting at. We, most americans, that is, do give embryos moral standing. We just don't give them exactly the same standing as humans, mice, dogs, cats, apes. And we currently give the mother the legal right to determine if an abortion is called for. Does that mean that a woman has done nothing wrong by repeatedly impregnating herself, expressly so she can abort the pregnancy? She's done nothing illegal, probably. But illegal and immoral are two different things.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 9:54 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Saith Armitage Shanks: "It's possible to be pro-choice without believing that an abortion is the equivalent of squeezing a pimple. "Safe, legal and rare," as the saying goes."

This was favorited a few times, so obviously others agree.

This seems untenable, or at least irreconcilable. I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?
posted by resurrexit at 9:54 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

The awesome part is that this tiny blip is guaranteed to rile up large numbers of people, but far smaller numbers will care about vast numbers of living, breathing people who are killed in conflicts around the planet every day.
posted by mullingitover at 9:55 AM on April 17 [7 favorites]

I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?

Is someone arguing that her art project should be illegal? She should be permitted to do a really dumb and offensive art project, but why should I be legally compelled to think it's a good idea, or that it has merit?
posted by The World Famous at 9:56 AM on April 17

Pssht. Yalies.
posted by turaho at 9:57 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

For abortion, I believe the mother's rights to quality of life supercede the rights of her unborn fetus. That doesn't mean the fetus shouldn't be considered at all; that it's an inanimate property of its owner. We can support access to abortion and still find this wrong.

Yes, this. If a woman accidentally becomes pregnant, she might decide that her future quality of life is more important than coming to term and having a child. This is not the same as saying a woman can intentionally get pregnant, knowing from the very outset that she would intentionally miscarry, just because she doesn't want a baby, and that's not why she got pregnant.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 9:57 AM on April 17

for pete's sake - you didn't expect her to spend years with a paintbrush in her hand, learning how to paint, did you? - that would take effort, hard work and talent - she's a member of the NOW generation and she doesn't have the time or energy to devote herself to her art like that

that's what really gripes me - the sheer banality and laziness of it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:57 AM on April 17 [9 favorites]

I think that everyone, no matter what they do, should commit to doing it in such a way that they don't bring disrepute on their profession, trade, craft, occupation, whatever. I know that's tougher with art, because art should challenge people, but this seems to fail even the most basic test: is this going to turn people off art altogether? Is it going to cause people to view artists as nothing more than dilettantes out to "produce a reaction," irrespective of the independent value of the art itself or the quality of the conversation that will ensue? Does it turn art into nothing more than an excuse to be perverted, self-abusive, and disgusting in public? By any test, this seems to fail.
posted by Dasein at 9:58 AM on April 17 [5 favorites]

Congrats. You found the WOTW. Only that's not what belongs here.
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:58 AM on April 17

Given the high price of artificial insemination, I am going with 'rich kid with too much free time.'
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 9:58 AM on April 17

oh yeah - "when i hear the word art, i reach for my maxi-pads"
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Please point out why animals sharing characteristics with humans (i.e. life, and others, like intelligence), should give them moral standing, while embryos sharing characteristics with humans (DNA, potential for life, intelligence, others) should not. Or why in neither case those characteristics give them any moral standing.

Nevermind that. I'm asking you to prove a negative.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 9:59 AM on April 17

"Not provoking controversy" my ass.

She let out this press release in the middle of a papal visit and she doesn't want it to induce controversy?

I say "liar".

(I also say "greatest artistic controversy monger" since Damien Hirst's debut show in the mid-1980s featuring freeze-dried aborted foetuses as ear-rings.)
posted by cstross at 10:00 AM on April 17

But that's only because you're investing a magical quality to this. If a fetus were viewed in a completely naturalistic way, I don't see why this should be so taboo.

I don't think I am at all -- I think most of us would have a very difficult time playing with fetal cat viscera, much less fetal human viscera, much less the viscera of a fetal human that carried our DNA. You'd puke; you'd cry; you'd freak out. It'd be awful. But why? Should we have that reaction? Why should it be different from cut hair and fingernail clippings? If it is different (and I think that it is), why should we allow abortion (and I think we should!)? What I think is interesting about this is that it makes us think about these things, but it doesn't give us an answer -- and how often do people really think about abortion? For most of us, on either side, I think those opinions are pretty much ironclad, immune to challenge, immune to growth, and -- for too many people -- immune to nuance. This challenges people to look at the subject with fresh eyes. Like I said, I think it's genius. I do think it's fake in the sense that's not really made of fetus, because it just doesn't compute with me that it really could be, but I also think it's necessary for her to claim that it is, if it's going to have an impact.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:01 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Also: anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an art class, do a little water color... I don't know. Something.


Ahhh Christ. Anyone that thinks people with a benevolent attitude toward artistic expression aren't allowed to punch holes in the latest attempt to get noticed in the miasmic cesspit of performance art need to take a deep breath. There's not a lot of 'right' and 'wrong' here, and even if there was, so what? Calling something art doesn't disallow strong criticism. Just the opposite, I think.
posted by docpops at 10:02 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

this rubs me the wrong way, though I'm not entirely sure of the reason why.

Right. And that unsureness about the reason why is the focal point of this as artwork. If this bothers you (it bothers me), why? The self-examination it takes to answer that question is likely to surface beliefs about pregnancy, the rights of women, abortion, etc., that have been previously unexplored.
posted by Miko at 10:02 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

Also: anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an art class, do a little water color... I don't know. Something.

Anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" *dosen't* apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an ethics class. Something.

Me? I'll just sit here with my book bound with human skin (lovely leather work), listening to "Johnny Rebel" exult me to lynch a negro (music is art!) while I starve this dog to death (Guillermo Vargas says it's cool, as long as it has a "message").
posted by kjs3 at 10:04 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Inflammatory political statement meant to induce controversy does not equal art.

Sure it can. Look at the Futurists. Art, especially postwar art, has always been about politics (or anti-politics), spectacle, etc. xod gets it right.

I mean, come on, all of Metafilter. What do you think art is? The notion of art as beautiful, romantic, dependent on the skill of the artist, a window into the world, a mark of the artist's psyche, transcendental --- we gave up on this notion of art in the 20th century, after the World Wars happened and people realized that rationality could become horribly corrupted. To paraphrase a quote from Adorno, "how do you write poetry after Auschwitz?"

So if you're going to talk about art, please at least understand that your notions of art-as-Michelangelo or Renaissance painting or even 19th-century frou-frou Rococo or Impressionist painting is past. This is 2008, and art has been trying for a few decades now to be relevant and not autonomous, not a status pawn for rich dealers and collectors. Whether it's working or not is debatable (I'm fairly pessimistic myself), but realize that things like this (WARNING: graphic) are in the MoMA, trying to talk about the world and such.

So - a girl giving herself abortions as art? This is possible, comprehensible today, maybe just not for you.
posted by suedehead at 10:06 AM on April 17 [11 favorites]

Either this is a hoax or she is mentally ill. In neither situation does her work qualify as art.
posted by Hogshead at 10:06 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

I am just so glad someone finally had the courage to do something to spark a debate about abortion! The one thing the abortion issue has been lacking is serious, passionate debate.

Big thinkers in this thread, I see.

Unlike yourself, apparently. Because if you see this as a crap stunt, you're just not a "big thinker."
posted by pardonyou? at 10:06 AM on April 17

If this is a hoax, then I think it's probably pretty brilliant.

If it's not a hoax, then I feel really, really bad for that woman. I hope she finds some kind of peace.
posted by Shohn at 10:08 AM on April 17

I kind of hope this is a hoax, but at the same time I am liking it as an abstract concept. Like the phoetus earings it seems an extreme reaction to the value of human life in our society.

Human life is at it's lowest value ever presently. The cost of a human being (slave) is less than US$100, in the past it was over (adjusted for inflation) US$10,000.

Having said that, I don't think I would actually have to see the piece to engage my mind on the subjects of abortion, the right to do what you like with your body or the value of life in a capitalist society. Some people, however don't have much opportunity to think as they are too busy not thinking.
posted by asok at 10:09 AM on April 17

Call me mainstream, but I sorta prefer Mao in this medium.
posted by dawson at 10:10 AM on April 17

I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?

Look, the "pro-choice" label communicates nothing about the labeled individual other than the fact that s/he believes that abortion should be legal. Some pro-choicers- many, I would say- still regard the fetus as a person, and see abortion as a tragedy which must be allowed in order to avert greater tragedies. For these individuals- who regard abortion as having a purpose- serially inseminating oneself and inducing abortions is completely contrary to the purpose of abortion.

I do not endorse that viewpoint, YMMV, void where prohibited, etc
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:10 AM on April 17

WHEN WILL YOU A**HOLE ATHEIST LIBERALS LEARN ART BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!!!!!11!!!!one!
posted by caution live frogs at 10:10 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Only interested if she's faking the whole thing. If she isn't then I'd have to read her 'statement' about what she's doing, and/or suggest she take a little break in the 'special hotel'.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:12 AM on April 17

I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?

That's not the argument. We have a moral obligation to act responsibly so as to prevent unwanted pregnacies, which in turn will make abortions rare. It's sort of like going on welfare. It's there for people who need it, and there are plenty of people who need it for reasons beyond their control. But as responsible citizens we're supposed to make every effort to support ourselves, not quit our jobs and squander our resources so as to be eligible to live on other people's tax dollars.

I agree with the people who are saying this is likely a fake, but the idea that this should be real makes me very angry. A fetus is a living organism capable of suffering. I don't like abortion, but I absolutely support legal abortions because I think them a necessary evil. This woman is deliberately and voluntarily doing evil.

And as for this project being intended to stimulate discussion, fuck that. There are moral limits to art just as there are moral limits to scientific research and business and every other area of endeavour.
posted by orange swan at 10:13 AM on April 17 [13 favorites]

I just feel bad for her uterus and her body. Will she ever be able to have children? I'm worried that if she trains her body with drugs to expel what's in her womb then she's in for a world of trouble.

Wanna bet she's on Oprah in 5 years telling this sad tale?
posted by frecklefaerie at 10:13 AM on April 17

I'm sure she'll make a wonderful mother someday. Then possibly some baloney sandwiches.
posted by roue at 10:14 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

This seems untenable, or at least irreconcilable. I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?

The "rare" in "safe, legal and rare" is a goal, not a requirement. She's permitted to do what she wants under the law.

But in a sense, you're right, for me it is irreconcilable. I believe that even an early stage fetus is profoundly different than, say, human hair, because it has potential that human hair doesn't. At the same time, I'm pro-choice because I won't impose that belief on someone else. The end result leaves me uneasy, and a project (or hoax) like this really pushes at that unease. I find it depressing and ugly.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:14 AM on April 17

Would more "dialog" be "sparked" by someone actually doing this than by publishing a story claiming that someone had done this?
posted by The World Famous at 10:15 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Shvarts on the day she's supposed to hand in her senior art project, on why she won't be handing in her assignment:

"the dog ate my homework."

Thank you! thank you! I'll be here all week!
posted by I, Credulous at 10:16 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Being an artist in a world where everything's been done must be a very difficult prospect. I know there's a lot of fascinating and valuable work being done by artists all over the world. And I'm also sure that a lot of it might be considered offensive to a passive, traditional audience.

But how much lasting value can provocative works of "stunt art" really have when the whole message of the work invariably boils down to a convoluted variation on the theme of "Society's fucked up -- discuss?"
posted by wabbittwax at 10:18 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Wait till the FREEPers see this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:18 AM on April 17

Right. And that unsureness about the reason why is the focal point of this as artwork. If this bothers you (it bothers me), why? The self-examination it takes to answer that question is likely to surface beliefs about pregnancy, the rights of women, abortion, etc., that have been previously unexplored.

This kind of thinking leads to the justification of all sorts of behaviors and also helps to generalize the definition of "art" to the point where "art" loses meaning. Self-examination of "questions" occurs everywhere and with everything - if this piece of "art" is to force us to ask questions, then the definition of art becomes very vague, inclusive and utterely worthless.

Like said earlier, what makes "art" art is the piece itself. There is no piece here. Rather, there is an "artistic statement" that is the focus of the art itself. She should stick to writing editorials and essays and leave "art" to those who actually understand the concept of what a piece is.

She might have a lot to say but "art" isn't probably what she should be using to say it.
posted by Stynxno at 10:18 AM on April 17 [7 favorites]

also: bonus alienation by the Yale Daily News for recording everyone's name thusly:

Aliza Shvarts ’08
Juan Castillo ’08
Alice Buttrick ’10
Sara Rahman ’09
Logan 8
THX-1138
etc.
posted by I, Credulous at 10:19 AM on April 17

Look, honestly, I DO think about these issues. I DO think about abortion, I DO discuss it, I DO try to examine the feelings that arise when it is discussed. Same with art: I already think about what art is and how it is and is not political.

So, you know, consider me less than grateful for this wonderful opportunity to finally really engage with these complex ideas.

I mean, if there were no other way to start a conversation about these topics, that would be one thing. But there are in fact plenty of other ways. And many of those other ways are not (and here I merely express my personal opinion) STUPID.

Even if you give this woman the benefit of the doubt and accept that her intent really is to start a conversation, she still pisses me off because she's far, far more likely to make people angry and disgusted than she is likely to make them think rationally and honestly about abortion and art. And, there is already a conversation. She is not starting a conversation. She is sh***ing in an existing conversation.
posted by prefpara at 10:19 AM on April 17 [4 favorites]

+1 for Stynxno.
posted by I, Credulous at 10:21 AM on April 17

Here we go.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002865/posts#comment
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:22 AM on April 17

Being an artist in a world where everything's been done must be a very difficult prospect.

It hasn't, is the thing, also, this argument doesn't really hold because even revolutionary art works because of (art)history.

What she's doing is making sure they spell her name right; see where she is in ten years. That she's a Yale art school (a puppy-mill for competent and often important and worthwhile artists - the list is preposterously long) speaks in her favor. Nothing else really does though.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:22 AM on April 17

I like art. I think it's good for us.

Also, in searching for a nice quote that might summarize my thoughts about how easily shocked we have always been by those nasty, nasty artists (something like Gauguin's "Today one can dare anything, and, furthermore, nobody is surprised." from 100 years ago) I discovered this lovely page full of them.
posted by Squid Voltaire at 10:23 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

OK, I'll give this some serious criticism (or at least make an attempt):

I'm unconvinced that she needed to actually impregnate and abort herself to create work that would stimulate the kinds of discussion she claims to want to. In fact, using the real results of real, intentional abortions may very well prohibit the kind of discussion she claims to want to stimulate. As an artist, might perhaps consider a representational, metaphorical way to present her topics. You know, actually create something, rather than skillfully preserve and display things your body can do.

But that's not my primary reaction to all this. My strongest criticism is prompted by this:

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

That's a false dilemma. She's saying that art has to be either 'a commodity' OR 'a medium for politics and ideologies'. Which is of course clearly untrue: art doesn't have to be anything in particular at all, and it certainly does not have to be one of those two things.

In fact, the commodification of art is a relatively recent phenomenon, and art that is a 'medium for politics and ideologies' has typically been historically ill-regarded. James Joyce draws keen distinctions in his Portrait, which I think are instructive here--as explained briefly here:

Joyce defines Improper Art as kinetic and breaks it down into two categories: the pornographic and the didactic. Pornographic art is any expression that inspires desire in the observer to possess the object. All advertising art is pornographic in this sense and therefore improper.

The second category of Improper Art, in Joyce's aesthetic, is the Didactic. Didactic Art is any artistic expression which instills fear or loathing in the observer and thereby pushes them away from the object being observed.

All comedy is didactic, at the least the best comedy is. All tragedy is didactic and all social expressions of anger are didactic.

Here's where it's really interesting, and where this young student's perspective is limited:

[Most] art produced since World War II...is improper in Joyce's sense because it has been inherently kinetic--suffused with internal movement that either pulls the observer toward it in a desire to possess or pushes the observer away with fear or loathing.

Artistically speaking, we've all grown up in a time in which so much art and artistic impulse has been co-opted by commerce that it can be (was for me, at least) very difficult to arrive at a conceptualization of art and its media of expression that is bigger than what my culture is drowning in--as pointed up by the rest of Joyce's ideas on this:

Joyce defines proper art as that which does not pull the observer toward it or push the observer away from it, but rather holds them still in aesthetic arrest of the moment. [Static art.]

In this definition, if a work of art is true, it uses the forms of time and space in terms of contemporary life (people, objects, and their relationships to each other) to blow apart the illusory divisions that allow us to exist as individuals who are born from the great blank, grow old through similar stages of life, and die back into the great blank.

I'm not arguing here for or against Joyce's views on art, but I think it points up that there are much broader (and, in my opinion, more substantial) views of what art is and can be than are common to contemporary American culture, and certainly than are in evidence in the work under discussion here.

This young artist has limits in conceptualization I would expect to see in a student--which is appropriate, because she's an undergraduate student, and has a lot left to learn and explore. I do not see anything in this work that merits the attention it is being paid, and am saddened that honest art (I do think this young woman is being honest, even while I think she's also sort of full of shit, like so many college students), art that is of mature substance and craft, will continue to gain not one whit of notice.


On preview: So if you're going to talk about art, please at least understand that your notions of art-as-Michelangelo or Renaissance painting or even 19th-century frou-frou Rococo or Impressionist painting is past. This is 2008, and art has been trying for a few decades now to be relevant and not autonomous, not a status pawn for rich dealers and collectors.

That's partly what I'm after above, but the ideas that art must be 'relevant', or that any 'autonomous' art is necessarily a status pawn is as stale as the perspectives from previous centuries which you decry. Dogmatism in artists is as off-putting as the ignorance and casual judgment of non-artists, quite frankly.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:23 AM on April 17 [22 favorites]

Would more "dialog" be "sparked" by someone actually doing this than by publishing a story claiming that someone had done this?

In fairness: Nope. It's all in the statement. But where else would it be? "Oh, my...your aborted fetus sculpture will look so lovely in my den! I love the way the light hits it...."
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:24 AM on April 17

This is probably a hoax, which will only partially mitigate the artist's likelihood of being stabbed to death.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:25 AM on April 17

Dear god.

You see, THIS is what I hate about what passes for modern discourse. With things like abortion, it's either all or nothing. Either fetuses are sacrosanct atomic nuclei made of pure concentrated soulstuff, absolutely inviolate in all cases, a divine event horizon past which we cannot hope to gaze beyond, or they're utterly disposable, trash tissue, and the remnants of the untouchable Free Process are suitable for unsubtle, obnoxious art protests.

Can't we both allow abortions, yet in some way get people to treat them as a big deal, and not regard them in an "oops I got preggies the third time this month let's go rip that sucker out" kind of manner?
posted by JHarris at 10:25 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

Also: anyone who thinks that "right" and "wrong" apply to art may need to go back to school, maybe take an art class, do a little water color...

How condescending of you, and how utterly wrong.

If there's one thing we've learned in the last 75 years or so, it's that "art" is what you make of it; that if I create or even simply frame something and call it "art", it is art.

The question, "Is this art?" is not a useful one, as the answer is almost always "Yes" if you have to ask. The really important questions are things like, "Is this beautiful?" (yes, I still believe in beauty) or "Is this thought-provoking?" or "Does this change your consciousness" or "Is this good or evil?" ( still believe in that, too) or "Does this have social utility?" (ditto).

I personally think this art is slightly evil and extremely distasteful, and I'm pro-abortion in general. This is art by the rich, for the rich, as most "serious" art in America is these days.

There are other cultures that don't have this obsession with art's originality and message, cultures that still do a kick-ass job in actually making new art (take Indonesia, for example.) Certainly, in most countries in the world, and most places in the US, if you told people that "right" or "wrong" do not apply to art, they'd just laugh at you, like I am doing.

(and I hope it's a hoax. If so, it's top-notch!)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:31 AM on April 17 [2 favorites]

This seems untenable, or at least irreconcilable. I mean, this artist should be permitted her choice to end her pregnancy, but should do so only rarely. . . Why?

Assume a person has a dog. The person decides that the dog can't be kept and can't be given away or sold. The person takes the dog and has it killed by the vet. Maybe the dog was a viscious creature, incompatible with living with people. Maybe the dog was old and sickly, and the action was out of mercy. Maybe the person lost their job and couldn't care for the animal. The point is it seems like under this ordinary circumstance, a person is acting out of choice, and they should have the right to make the choice. If on the other hand a person goes out everyweek and gets a new dog. Then takes it to the vet in the afternoon and has it put down, stuffed and mounted as art. They repeat this act again and again without an conscience about it. Then they have at a minimum a serious mental health problems. I would hope under this circumstance the state would become involved.
posted by humanfont at 10:33 AM on April 17 [9 favorites]

i vote hoax, btw. miscarriages tend to stop ovulation for anywhere between 2 months up to a year. and if it's RU-486, i seem to recall reading that there are some nasty side effects there.

i assume that the "art" here is people's reactions to it, not the act itself...
posted by rmd1023 at 10:33 AM on April 17

Everything is here. It is the singularity.

Yup. And I say good for her for getting her senior project into the national news. (Mine was a Lacanian reading of American Psycho or something similar.) And I'm guessing it is a hoax through pure Occam's Razor reasoning.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:34 AM on April 17

if it's RU-486, i seem to recall reading that there are some nasty side effects there.

In the article (not loading for me anymore or I'd cite it), she says she used natural abortifacient herbs.
posted by Locative at 10:35 AM on April 17

This is a hoax for no other reason than she claims to have been using herbal abortifacients to do the deed... Quite the grimly provocative hoax though.

"Many herbs and plants sold "over the counter" today are claimed by herbalists to act as abortifacients if taken in certain doses or mixtures. Examples include brewer's yeast,[2] vitamin C,[3] wild carrot, black cohosh, slippery elm, pennyroyal, nutmeg, mugwort, papaya, vervain, common rue, and tansy. Typically, the labeling will contraindicate use by pregnant women, but will not contain an explanation for this warning. There is no available data on the efficacy of these plants in humans. Some animal studies have found some of them to be effective.[4][5] The use of herbs to induce abortion should be avoided due to the risk of serious side effects. [6]"
posted by zeoslap at 10:36 AM on April 17 [4 favorites]

If you were her prof, how would you grade her project?
posted by wabbittwax at 10:37 AM on April 17

ack. this kind of thing is exactly why i gave up painting and stopped calling myself an artist. taking pleasure in carefully designing and executing plans that create discord and agitate others into conflict is symptomatic of anti-social personality disorder. just calling it "art" doesn't change this thing's fundamentally provocative and anti-social character.

and speaking as someone who's dealt with the tragedy of multiple-miscarriages in my own marriage and who at this very moment has a significant number of close friends and loved-ones who are going broke and practically losing their minds over heartbreaking real-life issues related to pregnancy-loss and infertility, I would love to give a nice sharp poke in the eye (metaphorically speaking) right back to this "artist" if I could. With a nice long and pointy stick, too, just like the one she's using on people like me.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:37 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

Obviously, if one's pro-life, Shavarts's work is objectionable, just as all abortions are. But if one is "pro-choice", what exactly is the problem here?

Um, it's super gross?

Also, many pro choice people will say that they don't like abortions, but that it's unfair to force women to give birth, and that it can be very bad for the child, that backally abortions will happen, etc. It could still be appalling to these people for a woman to impregnate herself just to have abortions.
posted by delmoi at 10:41 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

That is downright shocking. I think it's despicable and that she ought not do it, but it's her body, and no one else's.
posted by lukeklein at 10:42 AM on April 17

If the artist were to see this thread I imagine she would make the argument that the large number of strongly worded comments means that she has been successful, no matter how saddened and angry those comments are. She would feel that her repugnant actions were justified, courageous even, because they provoked heated debate.

I imagine some ABC News employees are making the same argument today.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:43 AM on April 17

Can't we both allow abortions, yet in some way get people to treat them as a big deal, and not regard them in an "oops I got preggies the third time this month let's go rip that sucker out" kind of manner?

This is a classic example of "Can't we all just agree with me?"

Why should people who don't regard fetuses as persons agree with you?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:45 AM on April 17 [3 favorites]

Teddy bears and mannequins share some characteristics with humans. But very few, or none of those ought to give them any moral standing.

Why not? Unless you're willing to suggest that there are some characteristics that are special?

Please point out why animals sharing characteristics with humans (i.e. life, and others, like intelligence), should give them moral standing, while embryos sharing characteristics with humans (DNA, potential for life, intelligence, others) should not. Or why in neither case those characteristics give them any moral standing.

Well, since we're talking about only some characteristics, and I don't see anything special about DNA, or potential for life (Don't eat that egg! It could be a chicken!--then we can eat it), or resemblance to us, if I had to pick one, it would be the capacity for suffering.

A fetus is a living organism capable of suffering.

Well, she's aborting them at an extremely early stage of development, I think embryo is perhaps the correct term. I certainly don't think a ball of cells are capable of suffering.

(And I wouldn't be surprised if research one day conclusively indicated that the capability of suffering comes at an extremely late date in development--perhaps, even several months after birth. You've got to have an active, developed, trained brain, and that's the very last thing to happen. But that's not what we're talking about.)
posted by cytherea at 10:45 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

I think it's a hoax. I hope it's a hoax.

But if not, I see this as the ying to the yang of those so anti-abortion they don't want exceptions for life/health of the mother. In both cases it's morally reprehensible, since they both treat the human life of one as more sacred than the other.

If it's real, I hope this woman finds some peace one day. And also, a real job.
posted by dw at 10:46 AM on April 17

I'll see your "Hoax" and raise you a "And the videos will be of Rick Astley."
posted by Westringia F. at 10:46 AM on April 17

Does this FPP reminds anyone one of the book Geek Love by Katherine Dunn? From Wikipedia:

The novel is the story of a traveling circus run by Aloysius "Al" Binewski and his wife, "Crystal" Lil. When Al's circus begins to fail, the couple devise an idea to breed their own freak show, using various drugs and radioactive material to alter the genes of their children.

I love that book. This art project? Not so much.
posted by paddysat at 10:47 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

...And where the hell is the "batshitinsane" tag?
posted by paddysat at 10:49 AM on April 17

I am going to nth the other people calling bullshit. Maybe I am too cynical, but this seems like a particularly sick April Fool's joke that she couldn't play on time. This can't be real.
posted by msali at 10:49 AM on April 17

If it's real, I hope this woman finds some peace one day.

What makes you think she's not at peace?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:50 AM on April 17 [1 favorite]

They repeat this act again and again without an conscience about it. Then they have at a minimum a serious mental health problems.

Or they simply do not place high value on the life of that particular animal. Like, for instance, those people who wear fur or leather jackets not because it provides them warmth during the winter, but because of its fashion. Or the people who eat meat not because they are hungry or for nutrition, but simply because it tastes good (foie gras, kobe beef, etc.)

Just because these people do not place such a high value on the lives of those animals they are now consuming (one way or the other) does not mean they have a serious mental health problem.

I love when dogs or cats come up as the example (read Michael Vick). Because most North American and Western European people keep these animals as pets they form emotion bonds not just to their own pet, but to the species as a whole. When they hear about the needless deaths of one of these animals they become very emotional. Meanwhile people in Southeast Asia could care less as these animals are little more than a source of food for them.

Before you get angry at what this student's art piece is you need to remove your emotional attachments otherwise you're thought process will be blinded by your emotions.

Is this piece wrong? Ultimately it boils down to whether or not abortion is wrong. If you believe abortion is wrong from the start, then this piece, honestly, isn't for you. I think this piece is aimed at those who are either on the fence or wholly support a woman's right to abortion.

I think we're seeing abortion being abused to the point that it's going to cause the fence-sitters and supports pause. Do you support abortion, but believe this artist is wrong for what she's done? How do you reconcile those two views? You're forced into rethinking your support on abortion and why it's right. It will either strengthen your beliefs or shatter them.

That's what this is all about.
posted by ruthsarian at 10:53 AM on April 17 [8 favorites]

She's certainly generating discussion, as evidenced by this very thread. I would call that Art. Distasteful to sure, but Art nonetheless.
posted by JeffK at 10:56 AM on April 17