http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts project, students on both sides of the abortion debate have expressed shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
Originally posted by whodeyMaking something into art trivialises it? There's a new one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
Whether or not it's any good I don't know, but society cannot put constraints on the definition of art, not even for life and death reasons. Same goes for banning violent porn in the UK.
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyCould the Holocaust have been considered "art"? You know, all those malnurished deformed bodies walking around aimlessly might have brought out Hitlers artistic side. Of course originally he had been a failed artist so perhaps the Holocaust was cathartic for him in this regard.
Making something into art trivialises it? There's a new one.
Whether or not it's any good I don't know, but society cannot put constraints on the definition of art, not even for life and death reasons. Same goes for banning violent porn in the UK.
My interest here is not whether the abortions were artistic so much as are they moral. What say you?
Originally posted by whodeyDon't be silly, it wasn't his intent to communicate ideas and emotions to an audience.
Could the Holocaust have been considered "art"? You know, all those malnurished deformed bodies walking around aimlessly might have brought out Hitlers artistic side. Of course originally he had been a failed artist so perhaps the Holocaust was cathartic for him in this regard.
My interest here is not whether the abortions were artistic so much as are they moral. What say you?
Either way, it's a woman's choice if she wishes to have another organism grow inside her, not society's. If someone were to steal nutrients from your blood, surely you'd say they were only allowed if you gave them permission? And if you gave that someone permission, would you not want to have the right to relinquish that privilege you gave them?
If she believes she is not ready to bring a person into the world (which does not exist until the human organism begins to experience, process and respond to external stimuli consciously via the brain) then it is moral to terminate.
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, you use the Holocaust Argument way too often.
Could the Holocaust have been considered "art"? You know, all those malnurished deformed bodies walking around aimlessly might have brought out Hitlers artistic side. Of course originally he had been a failed artist so perhaps the Holocaust was cathartic for him in this regard.
My interest here is not whether the abortions were artistic so much as are they moral. What say you?
Originally posted by whodeyArt is only art if people pay attention to it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
Ignore it. The person will just be some crazy lady who did some weird stuff when she was in school.
End of story.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI am not quite sure what you're saying here.
Could the Holocaust have been considered "art"? You know, all those malnurished deformed bodies walking around aimlessly might have brought out Hitlers artistic side. Of course originally he had been a failed artist so perhaps the Holocaust was cathartic for him in this regard.
If we disagree with you about the definition of art, we are anti-semitic? Or, if we disagree with you about the definition of art, we are Holocaust deniers?
Originally posted by whodeyI get only "Page cannot be find".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
T ...[text shortened]... shock -- sayging the project does everything from violate moral code to trivializing abortion.
Could you post it here?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBah, she's not taking it far enough. Getting traditionally inseminated 'as often as possible' and filming the proceedings might raise an eye-brow here and there.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2944,351730,00html
Art major Aliza Shvarts will be dsplaying her senior project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she will be artificially inseminating herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibit will feature video from the process.
Does this give new meaning to the expression 'pretentious cvnt'?
Originally posted by RetrovirusWell. It was from www.foxnews.com. So maybe it was one of the false stories they often post. Maybe they took it down when someone complained. And whodey, by saying this to Retrovirus, I am neither denying nor supporting the Holocaust in mid-20thC Europe. Just so we understand each other.
I get only "Page cannot be find".
Could you post it here?
Originally posted by FMFThe Holocaust ? What does the Holocaust got to do with it?
Well. It was from www.foxnews.com. So maybe it was one of the false stories they often post. Maybe they took it down when someone complained. And whodey, by saying this to Retrovirus, I am [b]neither denying nor supporting the Holocaust in mid-20thC Europe. Just so we understand each other.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI just wondered if those who are abortion advocates find her morality appaling by doing such or are they indifferent? Really anything can be considered art just as anything might be considered moral no matter how appaling it may be to others.
I am not quite sure what you're saying here.
If we disagree with you about the definition of art, we are anti-semitic? Or, if we disagree with you about the definition of art, we are Holocaust deniers?
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusHere is another web site that is NOT Fox news for all you fox news haters out there.
I get only "Page cannot be find".
Could you post it here?
http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/7639
While looking for another web site about the affair it seems that Yale is now saying that the self induced pregnancies and abortions never happened as well as the art project being cancelled altogether. Whether this is true or not who knows? Really does it matter? What if it actually did happen? My question still stands.
Originally posted by whodeyThat's an interesting throwaway comment. Assuming that you wanted to, on what basis would you defend Fox News?
Here is another web site that is NOT Fox news for all you fox news haters out there.
Originally posted by whodey
Whether this is true or not who knows? Really does it matter? What if it actually did happen? My question still stands.
Oh. I see. Look. Just forget my question about the basis upon which you would defend Fox News.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't defend any news source. Why should I? Because they are viewed as "conservative" perhaps? All we can do is try and corraborate what we hear on the news no matter its source. Just ask Dan the man Rather.
That's an interesting throwaway comment. Assuming that you wanted to, on what basis would you defend Fox News?
Originally posted by whodey
[b]Whether this is true or not who knows? Really does it matter? What if it actually did happen? My question still stands.
Oh. I see. Look. Just forget my question about the basis upon which you would defend Fox News.[/b]
Having said that, Fox news is not what this thread is about.