Abortion as art - are you disgusted?
Posted by Achelois on April 21, 2008
I found out about university senior art major Aliza Shvarts’ art project from Rawi’s blog.
Shvarts claims that she artificially inseminated herself as often as possible and then caused abortions multiple times within a period of nine months. She videotaped herself in her bathroom while having the abortions and collected the blood in a cup. She later froze that blood. Shvarts intends using the videos and collected blood for her art project.
News and blogs are buzzing with the headlines Shvarts has created. There are people who are disgusted with what she has done, while some are convinced that the story is bogus. Others are even suggesting that the blood be tested for pregnancy.
I don’t understand abstract or weird and shocking art. While to many art does not necessarily have to be beautiful, to me it should at least evoke pleasant emotions even if I don’t understand it. Shvarts’ ‘art piece’, I am afraid, will not do that for me. There is nothing pleasant in watching a naked woman collecting blood in a cup nor in viewing plastic sheets smeared with that same blood.
I don’t know whether Shvarts really caused multiple abortions and frankly I’m not disgusted by blood from menses/childbirth/miscarriage/abortion. I have pictures of my baby lying in a pool of my blood seconds after birth and it is truly one of the most beautiful photos because it signifies new life. The issues I have with Shvarts’ blood is that it symbolizes death and even if the story of her art is bogus I am already retching.
One commenter on a news blog mentioned that the projections of Shvarts having the abortions will bring back painful memories to those women who have had miscarriages. I am quite convinced that it is a strong possibility. The question then is, should art that distresses viewers be displayed? Can it even be called ‘art’?
April 21, 2008 at 8:24 pm
That is disgusting! If she really did that in the name of Art she is sick in the head! Just think about those poor souls, those feotuses that were aborted all that just to make a name for herself…….what a sicko!!
April 21, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Yuck!
April 21, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Some art is meant to evoke a strong negative response. Some art is meant to educate and motivate. However, this “piece,” if it were true, would disgust me for no other reason than the nature of it. Art should always mean something. I fail to see where the artist has stated what the purpose of this project was.
It seems either entirely fake, or that this girl is without a creative bone in her body, or she is in effect trying to ban choice for women.
I’d be interested to know which.
April 21, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“The issues I have with Shvarts’ blood is that it symbolizes death”
It symbolizes death only if we say it does, because we do not know whether she was ever pregnant or if she ever actually miscarried. Shvarts herself does not know. Of course, she still claims she did the things necessary to conceive and abort, but many people including myself are convinced that actual pregnancies/abortions didn’t happen. Some people are pointing out that abortion is not so easy, you can’t just get hold of some herbal medicines and induce a miscarriage. If it were that easy, then the pro-choice people wouldn’t be fighting so hard for the legal right to abortion: those who needed to do it so badly, would just do it.
The question of disgust, I think, is slippery. Some people are saying that Shvarts has done something immoral. To conflate disgust and immorality may be a trap, coz emotivists have been arguing that all morality is bull, because when you say something is evil or immoral all you really mean is “I don’t like it.” Whether this can be called “art” is of course a good question, but probably one that can’t be resolved. Art that distresses people is not new at all: there are plenty of examples.
“Just think about those poor souls, those feotuses that were aborted”
Firstly, if you believe in the Islamic conception of “soul,” then there is nothing to think about here. Even if Shvarts actually ever had a fertilized ovum, there were no souls. At least not according to the Prophet, who is supposed to have said that the soul is breathed in on the 120th day. While there are disagreements, various Islamic legal schools consider abortion legal in the first trimester. I barely know enough to comment authoritatively, but I’m just pointing out there’s a lot of gray areas. Also I think it’s important for Muslims to not be carelessly influenced by contemporary political movements, such as the Christian Right
April 21, 2008 at 11:25 pm
“WT#!”. I still don’t believe that she got pregnant and then *performed* the abortion(numerous as she states and is still alive). This is way not too believable. Women have died just trying to perform abortions.
April 21, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Where does it say that the prophet spoke about life being breathed in on the 120th day? How fascinating!
Achelois: I really liked your *it signifies new life. The issues I have with Shvarts’ blood is that it symbolizes death*
I call this ”Tabloid art” it has little to do with art, it is conceptional art anyway, the artist doesn’t really create, he/she just exhibits an idea. And a pretty crappy one in my opinion. leave it if she really aborted herself or not; I find the concept she thought up pretty callous and selfish. And she got what she wanted: big media attention.
This probably means we’re gonna have to be exposed to more of this by other ”original” artists. For the last ten years I haven’t been to one Art-college exhibition where some student didn’t consider themselve to be ‘’shocking” and ”original” by concentrating on private body-parts. It was só boring. When I heard of this one I thought: ”Ah, they’ve moved on to a new theme”
So: Tabloid Art because there is no real Message or Art here, it’s a means to get media attention. It’s pure egoïsm.
April 21, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I think there are several issues here.
In general, to the last question
Yes. Art is not “beautiful” or “soothing”, or “nice”, art is the deep expression of a feeling, shared with other people, and this feeling can be bad, this feeling can be anger, despise, even hatred, it can be sorrow. The large question of what is “art” is difficult to answer, and over the years I came to my view. Art is transcendence, when someone is able to express something in a way that goes beyond its own narrow experience, that can be understood, felt, by people with other experiences, culture… and when this expression triggers new experience or feeling to its viewer / hearers… That’s a definition that can be discussed, up to now I found it quite convenient…
Nevertheless, that’s not the point.
I’m quite convinced, for many reasons that she did not do it. I know what it is to miscarriage, and even from a physical point of view, methinks that’s a pure bogus.
But in such times where abortion rights are challenged, and where the legal abortion is becoming more and more difficult for women in many countries, I find what she did quite stupid. This is just giving arguments to the anti-abortion militants. She’s doing heavy damages to the too numerous poor women who often have no choice but to abort, and not enough money to do it easily in private clinics
April 22, 2008 at 12:51 am
Hadn’t come across this woman or her art. Sounds gross anyway. And people though Damien Hirst was weird…
April 22, 2008 at 12:52 am
error -thought
April 22, 2008 at 1:30 am
“Where does it say that the prophet spoke about life being breathed in on the 120th day?”
Not “life” just the “soul.” But if you consider the soul as giving life to a body, then you are in agreement with those scholars who argued that according to this hadith, life begins on the 120th day, hence abortion before then is okay. However, others argue that even if the soul is breathed in on the 120th day, life begins immediately with fertilization. Still others argue that this hadith is not authentic, though a pretty well-known one.
“Tabloid Art because there is no real Message or Art here, it’s a means to get media attention.”
Well, it’s all relative. You can read the artist’s statement that has been published: there’s some strong message. You are right, Aafke, that it doesn’t matter “if she really aborted herself or not”, but unfortunately for everyone the artist wins no matter what! With respect to her stated purpose and manifesto, arguably her project has been rather succesful.
April 22, 2008 at 8:04 am
Rawi, that is the problem I have with the whole thing – whether or not she actually had the abortions (which I think she did not and cannot possibly have in any case) the whole fuss associated with it has caused people to believe when they see her bleeding into a cup (which is most probably menstrual blood) that she is having an abortion. That to me symbolizes death. The idea symbolizes death even if it is confirmed she never had the abortions.
Maya, you are right - art should ‘motivate’ and ‘educate’ and I am now wondering if the whole fuss is to actually to educate people against abortion. Perhaps she created all this fuss to show how horrifying it is to expel an embryo out of the womb where it is supposed to grow.
Aafke, ‘tabloid art’ – that is a good term. I so agree with you. I think it is just too sensational for many people.
Marie-Aude, I am pro-abortion so I understand what you are saying and I think this was her intention to begin with anyway. I think she is definitely doing ‘heavy damage’ to women who want to abort.
April 22, 2008 at 9:12 am
I believe she was not educating people against abortion, from what i have read on feminist blogs, she is pro choice. she wanted to start a debate on how her ovaries, fallopian tubes, womb etc have MORE purposes than just reproduction.
April 22, 2008 at 11:10 am
Its a hoax jeez.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080418/D903VVSO0.html
April 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm
If it’s not a hoax she’s just messed up in the head.
April 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Even if it is a hoax, which it is, she is still messed up in the head!
April 22, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Yes.
Sorry Rawi, writing error. but thanks for explaining.
April 27, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Achelois baji, why are you pro-abortion?
I know diddly squat about this, but do you think it would be ok to do abortion when a woman is say 6 months pregnant? What could be the reasons? Or is it ok for any reason?