Originally Posted by lipstickandhate
That picture is a still from her youtube "anti establishment" rant ...... |
| Purported abortion art dupes media, public Internet spiral gives Yale student what she wants: A whole lot of attention By JoNel Aleccia Health writer MSNBC updated 2 hours, 52 minutes ago If Yale University student Aliza Shvarts wanted attention for her senior art project, she gets an “A” for effort. Everyone else, apparently, gets a “D,” for duped. The Internet is still reeling from the 22-year-old’s claim Thursday that she captured a series of self-induced abortions on video as part of a final project before her graduation in May. Outrage exploded and abortion rights advocates and foes alike condemned the project described in the college paper, the Yale Daily News. One blog referred to Shvarts as a baby-killing “fetus artist.” The incident sparked a series of denials and counter-denials about the truth of Shvarts' assertion that she inseminated herself repeatedly over nine months, took herbal drugs to induce abortions and then recorded the bloody aftermath for a public exhibit set for next week. It also raised a larger question of whether the entire project — and the publicity that ensued — was part of an self-perpetuating hoax in an era of instant media saturation. “Our responsibility as journalists to do good reporting when we know we’re getting punked is No. 1,” said Kelly McBride, an ethics columnist for the Poynter Institute, a journalism education and advocacy organization. On Friday, facts were hard to come by. Yale officials Thursday denied the story in the school paper, saying that Shvarts told three senior administrators that she faked the abortions as an elaborate gesture of “performance art.” “The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body,” said Yale spokeswoman Helaine Klasky. Student reverses position But then Shvarts (or somebody claiming to be Shvarts) denied the university's denial in an e-mail to msnbc.com, insisting that the acts were real. “I did very much impregnate myself and then induce the miscarriages,” read the e-mail from her personal account that was sent late Thursday. That was the only response from Shvarts, whose campus phone has been disconnected and who didn't return e-mails to her school account. When msnbc.com forwarded the e-mail to Yale officials, who forwarded it to Shvarts, Shvarts told them she didn't write the e-mail. But then she echoed similar sentiments in the school paper, but slightly changed her story, saying she didn't know if she had actually been pregnant, but that she had inseminated herself and later induced bleeding. University officials said Shvarts told them she would deny their version of events. “Her denial is part of her performance,” Klasky said. “We are disappointed that she would deliberately lie to the press in the name of art.” The project was approved by a faculty adviser in the Yale School of Art, Klasky said, adding that the proposal did not include details. It’s still not clear what Shvarts actually did — or why. The e-mail to msnbc.com from Shvarts' account stated the project was designed to illuminate a fundamental aspect of “Womynhood.” “I take absolutely nothing more seriously than birth because creating life is the sole domain of Womyn,” the e-mail went on. “But I feel that birth and death are inextricably linked and recognizing this link is key to understanding the greater purpose of my piece.” Shvarts apparently recorded the forced miscarriages on video and planned to exhibit the images on a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a gallery in Yale’s Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall. She also planned to include hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting layered with blood from the purported miscarriages mixed with petroleum jelly. Cultivating uncertainty Ambiguity was the point, she told the student paper. “No one can say with 100 percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,” she said. “The nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties. “ The editor of the student paper, Andrew Mangino, said Friday he stands by his story, though he notes that it’s possible Shvarts was never pregnant. “The News’ reporting indicates that Aliza’s project is not a hoax,” Mangino said. “Two News reporters demanded and received physical evidence as well as graphic (and, at times, bloody) photographs in order to confirm that the project indeed has a physical manifestation beyond the shock value of its public explanation.” Mangino said he doesn’t believe the paper was duped, and he rejected the idea that the paper could have been cooperating in Shvarts’ performance. “The News absolutely did not collude with Ms. Shvarts in any giant media hoax,” he said. “Any suggestion to that effect is ludicrous and flatly wrong.” Issue raises ethical questions Shvarts is far from the first artist to use shock to make a point, noted Michael Darling, curator of modern and contemporary art at the Seattle Art Museum. Wrestling with thorny issues should be applauded, he added. "Obviously, she's trying to push a lot of buttons about women's rights and cloning and all those issues," he said. "But it's also a student, too, and they're prone to things that aren't fully formed. A more mature artist may have had a clearer message in mind before embarking on such a project, unless widespread media attention was the primary goal, he said. "It makes the rest of the world think the art world is crazy," Darling said. Whether the student paper that started the story was a victim of a ruse or helped perpetuate one, the young journalists violated basic ethical principles, said Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and an msnbc.com columnist. “There are some topics that just cry out for verification,” Caplan said. “There’s a lot of punking going on by performance artists and journalists need to be wary and savvy — even student journalists.” That can be difficult, even for veteran journalists, McBride added. "We are no longer the gatekeepers of information," she said. "We have to act as if we're providing perspective where truth is elusive." |
| Originally Posted by MAC_Whore
_________________________________ Serious question, and this may have been covered, but how did Looney Tunes get semen, because everything about her screams boner-killer. |
| Originally Posted by MAC_Whore
Yeah, can't you just imagine a day in her calendar? Here's my guess: 1. Wake up - check 2. Have coffee - check 3. Abort fetus or maybe just collect menstrual blood in cup (Note to self: Remember to film! I just know everyone will want to see it!!) - check 4. Put on sassy boots and leopard drawers - check 5. Video myself ranting against "the man" and all of the injustices I suffer - check 6. Call mommy and remind her to send my tuition payment to Yale - check 7. Get a Jamba Juice - check 8. Go home and inseminate myself - check Wow! Full day. I'm tired. I think I'll call it a day! ________________________________ Serious question, and this may have been covered, but how did Looney Tunes get semen, because everything about her screams boner-killer. |
| Originally Posted by athena123
I don't care what her intentions were, I really don't. The ends do NOT justify the means. Whatever point she's trying to make it could have been done some other way. The very act is a mockery. Either she's mocking those who have made very painful decision to terminate a pregnancy, or she's mocking people who would do ANYTHING to conceive. And this certainly doesn't help rape victims either. I know life isn't sunshine and it's not always pretty, but spending your time focusing on such a gruesome task is hardly exalting, is it? After I read the news and realize the ugliness, then I prefer to focus on the beauty around me. It keeps me sane. I too have a pretty open mind, but it's not so open my brains are gonna fall out, nor does my open mind mean any lack of conviction. Some things are just wrong, and for me, the process of achieving an end result is sometimes even more important than the result itself. I'm just not an "ends justifies the means" woman and I never will be. That rationale has been used to justify some pretty horrible things. kat, please don't think that because I'm stating MY disagreement equates "flaming" you. I'm simply not gonna agree with you on this. |
| Originally Posted by revinn
(Does anyone else think it's extremely lame how people can slap anything together and call it art these days? I'm all for modern, unique art, but an exhibition of uteral blood? Umm..no thanks..) |
| Originally Posted by revinn
I don't think I'd have a problem with this as much if I understood what she was trying to prove by doing it.. The fact that she would put so much stress on her body and belittle the serious act of abortion is beyond me. You know, I'm all for using the shock tactics to get people talking, but there's a limit..when you hurt, discriminate against or demean yourself or anyone else, then you've gone too far. That's why I really liked the starved dog hoax; it got people talking in outrage, then turned us all into hypocrites and made us look back on ourselves. Why do we only address starving animals with such passion when they are dangled in front of us by the media? In this case, however, the artist made a pointless sacrifice that is in no way effective. Her message doesn't come across clearly, and it only inspires disgust and outrage. I'm pro-choice, but come on..to make such a mockery of life itself is so horrifying. Having an abortion is an extremely emotional choice for a woman, and this stupid girl has taken advantage of her schooling to completely defile this hard decision. Can anyone explain to me what point she was trying to get across? I don't speak her pretentious, holier than thou lingo, apparently. (Does anyone else think it's extremely lame how people can slap anything together and call it art these days? I'm all for modern, unique art, but an exhibition of uteral blood? Umm..no thanks..) |
| Originally Posted by S.S.BlackOrchid
As for her "art", yeah I think it's messed up and I don't understand the point she's trying to make. But is she really evil, or "a bitch" for doing so? I have gotten pregnant and made myself miscarry the baby and I don't feel anything of it. I think the baby is better off. And yes, I feel terrible for people who are unable to conceive, but why should that alter my decision? |
| Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
BTW, I think it's actually quite cheap to take shots on how this girl is dressed and/or her looks. I've known people who find that look stylish. Some of them are pretentious as hell, some of them are the nicest people ever. There really are more important things to criticize about her than her looks or her style choices |
| Originally Posted by MissChievous
Wait so, this is all a hoax? She didn't actually get preggo and abort? Meh, I'm kinda bored with these "art statment" things. There have been so many of these types of art school projects with the intention to shock and gain publicity. I find it boring and unoriginal by now. |
| Yale University officials say they will not allow Abortion Girl to show her senior 'art' project at its scheduled opening on Tuesday unless she admits in writing that she's a fake. School of Art Dean Robert Storr said, "Yale does not encourage or condone projects that would involve unknown health risks to the student. Nor does it believe that open discourse and inquiry can exist in an educational and creative community when an individual exercises these rights but evades full intellectual accountability for the strong response he or she may provoke.” Abortion Girl has not responded to the University's latest 'ban' statement. As of Friday, she was claiming that nothing was faked — she DID artificially impregnate herself and induce abortions. Abortion Girl said last week that if the University refuses to exhibit her piece, she'll show it elsewhere. Yale also announced that two faculty members have been disciplined for allowing Abortion Girl to move forward with her project. |
