Why we should embrace abortion art
By: Mike Hathaway
Issue date: 4/29/08 Section: Opinions
Two weeks ago, Yale art student Aliza Shvarts announced her senior art project: a scandalous work documenting a series of artificial inseminations, home-performed abortions and what might have been the resultant stillbirths.
The display media was to contain blood from the process, and videos of the progression of the project. Unsurprisingly, people of all social persuasions became very upset, very quickly. The work was soon discredited as a hoax, or rather, as a reaction-provoking work of art in its own right. Shvarts, however, has claimed that explanation to be a cover-up, despite the fact that nobody has seen evidence of her project's existence. Whether or not it happened, the response shows the level of hypocrisy that we tolerate in our culture. If the project is real, its images should not be limited to a one-time art exhibition. Rather, the content should be force-fed by broadcast into each and every American home.
Many people, both for and against abortion, have claimed that Shvarts' art concept is repugnant and degrading of humanity. Since when is the American public so squeamish? As a culture, we are first-rate consumers of violent video games, gang-themed rap, pornography, YouTube fight clubs and gritty sensationalist journalism. Our love-hate relationship with these media is an ongoing orgy of offense. To dismiss a depiction of abortion as "offensive" contradicts the social acceptability of many other artistic media that could arguably give offense. We, the voting public, are ultimately responsible for abortion's legal status. As such, we have no right to demand that proof of the practice be swept under the rug for the sake of our comfort.
Artificial inseminations are not prohibited by law. Abortion is legal in the United States - though doubtlessly limited to "clinical" settings. Stillbirths have been around as long as there have been mammals, and they are no great target of legislation. Because the opposition to this project could not reasonably be based on the illegality of the acts displayed, a value judgment must be involved.
The display media was to contain blood from the process, and videos of the progression of the project. Unsurprisingly, people of all social persuasions became very upset, very quickly. The work was soon discredited as a hoax, or rather, as a reaction-provoking work of art in its own right. Shvarts, however, has claimed that explanation to be a cover-up, despite the fact that nobody has seen evidence of her project's existence. Whether or not it happened, the response shows the level of hypocrisy that we tolerate in our culture. If the project is real, its images should not be limited to a one-time art exhibition. Rather, the content should be force-fed by broadcast into each and every American home.
Many people, both for and against abortion, have claimed that Shvarts' art concept is repugnant and degrading of humanity. Since when is the American public so squeamish? As a culture, we are first-rate consumers of violent video games, gang-themed rap, pornography, YouTube fight clubs and gritty sensationalist journalism. Our love-hate relationship with these media is an ongoing orgy of offense. To dismiss a depiction of abortion as "offensive" contradicts the social acceptability of many other artistic media that could arguably give offense. We, the voting public, are ultimately responsible for abortion's legal status. As such, we have no right to demand that proof of the practice be swept under the rug for the sake of our comfort.
Artificial inseminations are not prohibited by law. Abortion is legal in the United States - though doubtlessly limited to "clinical" settings. Stillbirths have been around as long as there have been mammals, and they are no great target of legislation. Because the opposition to this project could not reasonably be based on the illegality of the acts displayed, a value judgment must be involved.
Policy on posting: The Arizona Daily Wildcat would like to offer readers an opportunity to voice their opinions and engage in community conversation. However, readers should refrain from personal attacks or advertisements in their comments. When a reader chooses to participate in the Wilcat's online comments, they should be aware that all comments and postings do not reflect the views of the publication. Links referencing different sources for the sake of discussion are tolerated and encouraged, but comments and links that are posted only to advertise other sites will be deleted at the discretion of the Wildcat.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
S Miller
posted 4/29/08 @ 12:40 PM MST
I disagree with the authors central point that everyone should be "force-fed" this art. I agree that the artist is entitled to create such art, and she is not breaking any laws. (Continued…)
Post a Comment