From Yale Daily News:
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.
My uterus hurts just reading about this. And I don’t even have one.
But I’m not necessarily against this “project” in and of itself, however. When artists choose to do “shocking” things such as this — or place a crucifix in a jar of urine , or create a portrait of the Virgin Mary using elephant crap — I don’t get into the whole “is this art” debate. It’s a fruitless endeavor. In my opinion, the definition of “art” is in the eye of the beholder — meaning that, yes, literally anything can be considered art if someone says it is. The question is never, “Is this art?” It should always be, “Is this good art?”
In this particular case, my answer is: No, it is not good art. And it is not good art because the artist has failed in what she set out to accomplish. She implicates her failure in this quote:
“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.”
Judging by the discussions I’ve seen on a few message boards and a conversation I just had with a friend of mine, all this piece has succeeded in doing is scandalizing people. Observers aren’t talking about what her supposed “message” is; they are only discussing the shocking nature of the project itself. I’m sure once I get home and turn on the cable news networks, there is not going to be any dialogue about the relationship between art and the human body, as she wanted — the pundits are going to focus solely on the “is this art” question. Thus, Ms. Shvarts’ project is a failure.
Now, if she had admitted that causing a kind of surface-level controversy was part of the concept, then the project could be considered some measure of a success. But then, shocking for the sake of being shocking is an empty pursuit, anyway, and the piece would still suck.
BTW, I hate when artists give that coy “I didn’t mean to shock people” line when something is so obviously going to shock people. It’s not the message that’s upsetting, either: It’s the fact that you’re giving yourself a miscarriage.
