Two days ago, I wrote about s Yale Art Student's controversial art project concerning reproductive rights. According to Yale Daily News, the University will not allow Aliza Shvarts to display her art project unless she defines it as a work of fiction. Th school also disciplined two faculty members to allow the project to continue.
It seems that if Yale forces her to do declare this as fiction, then it diminishes the meaning of the art because, first, it ruins the ambiguity of the project-- is it real, is it not-- and diminishes the "shock value." Originally, I thought the art was only "shock value." Once you attempt to remove the "shock value," it, in a weird way, becomes art. Second, it forces a definition on her project, which reinforces her point about the rhetoric of definition, but eliminates the democratic nature of the work as the University tells us what to think. If the student expected this result, which I do no think she did, then she is very smart. However, I think her statement suggests she desired the shock value only. Third, it reflects why most people do not get to discuss this issue, reinforcing the view that politics, especially the culture wars, is a game only for elites.
Since Yale is a private University there are much different first amendment arguments in place as private universities possess a greater legal ability to restrict speech, though it would be unwise to do so, especially if this becomes "art" after the University's action.
The Volokh Conspiracy writes that first, a school can use content neutral approaches to regulate school projects, such as do not use human blood, protect the health of students, etc., however, because of the nature of modern art, there may not be a clear line; second, the school can employ a "tell the truth" policy i.e. students should state their projects are fiction or a parody, but this is much harder for a work of art (aren't representations, especially abstract representations, "lies") and eliminates the shock value of the message; and three, the university needs to set clear rules beforehand and it is not clear in this case if those rules were in place.
Though it seems that the University is attacking the student for her message and for a perceived lack of taste, I do not think that this will turn into a larger first amendment controversy. It certainly would not find a sympathetic ear with this Supreme Court. In fact, this controversy will soon go away as soon as people like me stop posting on it.
If there are further updates, I will let you know.
10 comments:
Thanks for your posts on this, solon, it has been the subject of a lot of thought, and talk, down here in your old stomping ground, though the dearth of comments might suggest otherwise.
Keep the updates coming!
Well, it is good to know that the post as led to some debate. I would love to know how people see this topic...hint, hint.
Like Harrogate, I've been thinking a lot about this project, but my feelings about it are really conflicted, hence why I haven't commented.
First, it is impossible for me to respond to this story without thinking about my own child, my experiences as a pregnant woman, and my concern about miscarriage while I was pregnant. From that perspective, I find it incredibly difficult to read about this project, and I don't think I'd be able to view the resulting images that the student created. While I understand that she did this to create a work of art about the ambiguity of conception, life, and death, I find it really hard to separate that from my own feelings about pregnancy and miscarriage. As a woman who wanted to be pregnant and chose to get pregnant, I would have been devastated had my pregnancy ended in miscarriage. Thus, the idea of forcibly inducing what may or may not of been a miscarriage is difficult for me to swallow, especially if she is only doing this for "shock value."
From an intellectual perspective, I find the project very intriguing. I think this work could do a lot to support the so-called "morning after pill." Her point, after all, is that there is no way to know if she had a miscarriage or not because there is no way to know if she was ever pregnant. The ambiguity of life is not something that most of us are willing to talk about, so I find the concept of the project really admirable if only because this artist is trying to start a dialogue about something we typically ignore in our culture. But, as you point out Solon, if Yale does indeed force her to declare that this is a fiction, it will erase the greater purpose of the project, which is the focus on ambiguity.
I think that the morning after pill is a very wise take on this. I only wish that the student whose project we discussed mentioned it. After reader her statement (see first post), I think she was an undergrad who attempted to interject postmodernism into her work in an incoherent way.
I did not think she had a viable project until Yale stated it would force her to declare that this project was fictional. At this point, her project gains a lot of meaning. I do not think that she intended this (she would have been very smart to pre-calculate this and I am not sure I can judge this from what I know of her) but now this story is quite interesting. Her art carries meaning only in its ability to make people protest her or make people try to redefine or silence her. Now, that is art.
Here is a link to an NPR interview on "shocking" art that discusses this case
I've been following this story, too. I agree with you, Solon, that this piece is not that impressive until the question of is it true or fiction is added into it. When I consider the artist's press release along with Yale's press releases along with her refusal to state that it is fiction as an ongoing work of performance art that forces the university itself to engage with the art, I find it intriguing and stimulating. We are, in fact, participating in the art itself even now. Also, the label of "hoax" that has been attached to it by various sources adds an element that I have been thinking about since I heard of it. It seems that those who call it a hoax would insist on her story being true if it is to be taken seriously, but if, in fact, it were true those same people might refuse to call it art and only call it obscenity. She succeeds in forcing us to name the thing and in creating a project that changes in meaning based on the name ascribed by the viewer.
I think that the "shock value" of the piece is really of not much value at all. All of the interesting questions that this piece raises, in my opinion, are of art's relationship to the body and the viewer's relationship to art. I don't think she has made any interesting statements about abortion, the morning after pill, women's bodies, or women's health. The dialogue about all of these things is already open--it's not like people don't talk about abortion. I don't see how she has made any substantial statement about the morning after pill, either. She certainly hasn't convinced anyone to feel sympathy for women who might choose to use it or to support its legal distribution. Without the conversation that we are having, her art does not impress me. But we are having the conversation, so good for her.
Interestingly, I do not have the same personal negative response to it that M has. I have experienced the miscarriage of a wanted fetus, and it was crushing. I still think about it frequently and it still hurts. This artist's project is so far removed from that experience that I struggle to connect the two at all. She did not get pregnant hoping to have a baby, and she never knew whether she was pregnant or not. Not knowing probably protected her from the kinds of feelings that women who have natural miscarriages or even women who have abortions experience. There can be no grief here. It's an experiment.
I think a lot of what you say is right, Sarah. I didn't mean to suggest that the artist was trying to make a statement about the morning after pill, rather that this project could be used in support of such the pill. I also agree that this is only compelling because she forces the viewer to name what it is she is doing. Typically the act of naming something is considered empowering, as it implies some sort of control, but does the act of naming, the act of deciding exactly what the art of this project is empowering? I'm not so sure in this case, which makes it all the more compelling for me.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm not even sure where to begin because you all have made some MOST EXCELLENT points--should have been art historians! For now I think I will provide some little tid-bits that run through my head, but I think I may have to revisit with some perspective because I'm unsure how coherent this will be.
First, and this reminds me of a fucking question I had during an interview: what is bad art? Simply put, you cannot say something is bad because over time, language and meanings change and what was not liked in one historical period can be loved by later generations--think Vincent van Gogh. Something can be critiqued though on its mimicry of what has been done but others.
The concept of the body as art is as old as man/woman--think of tattooing, cranial deformation, feet binding, etc. I personally have little taste for such art as in Maple Thorpe and others (including that guy that nailed himself to a car--think a bug) it just not what I like--it is important but not my cup of tea. At times I'm a little taken aback by art that utilizes the body and bodily fluids, but Carolee Scheneemann's Interior Scroll is a masterpiece of feminist discourse that deals with claiming of a woman's body by herself--in the work she pulls a scroll from her vagina that she reads--it is brilliant! If I'm recalling correctly, she (think it was her but maybe somebody else) also used menstrual blood so, nothing new here! By using blood, she is repeating what has been said without advancing the cause.
But then again, she very well may have some idea what she was doing with regards to the social taboos, at least she would have if she had a good professors. She should have been educated on postmodern discourse in art--think of the elephant dung Madonna or Piss Christ or to those mentioned above. Likewise the idea of censorship is relevant as well because the history of art is litter with such occurrences, including the canonical discussion of Veronese's House of Levi (created an image of the Last Supper and the Inquisition asked to account for the inclusion of drunkards, dwarfs, Germans, and similar vulgarities--claimed artist license but changed titled to save his ass) to Manet's Luncheon the Grass (nude prostitutes with dressed young men that was refused by the Parisian Salon and marking the beginning of Impressionism). But what I think is critical here, sorry if jumping tracks, is sarah's noting of it being called a "hoax". This is important because it is an attempt to belittle the work and not accept it (likewise sarah i think you are right on and very well put). The above mentioned censorships are a good example as well as porn--the old laugh and saying is what separates porn from art is the lighting.
Sorry jumping to another thought, if this is performance art the idea of of whether it is fiction or not will never be answer. Sadly I think this was an attempt at shock, because the conceptualization of the piece does not to advance either side of the political unrest that she has engaged--then again that might be the point to show everyone how trivial this all can be (don't ask me to explain this now because I'm not sure I can). But then again she is continuing the modernist approach to visual arts where the artist and art culture seek to further alienate the masses from art--sorry but shock art does not initiate a debate with these people, it only engages us the intellectuals. So from that perspective her work has failed to positively add to the history of art because art in all its forms should be integrated into our lives to create positive discourse not polarizing as we have seen with Clinton/Obama.
loosing my train of thought must revisit this later.
I'm not sure she has an understanding of feminist discourse or if she is making a feminist statement at all. As you suggest, paperweight, her professors should have talked to her about these issues, but given the statement she issued, which is included in Solon's original post, it really seems that she is just trying to offer some poor post-modernist analysis after the fact. I agree with Sarah--our discussion, and others like it, is what has made this piece art.
After learning that two professors have received discipline because of this project, I do not think she or they anticipated this.
For her to be brilliant, she would have needed to, first, plan the initial art project about the attempts to induce and abort pregnancy and act as if she documented it; second, calculate that this "project" would be discussed by the press and receive coverage and outrage; third, know that the university would cave and force her to define her work, making this the actual "art;" finally, if she were brilliant, she ought to have documented all of this and create a media collage of the initial project, the outrage, the "hoax", etc., and then turn the larger discussion into "art." The last step would constitute art and create a dialogue about a woman's body and the role of institutions in controlling it.
I do not think she did this and attempted to carry out step one only.
Post a Comment