Abortion as art. Read about it here, at one of America’s Ivy League schools. (The site is slow so be patient and prepare yourself. I mean that.)
Tanya adds: Art is created for other to experience and interpret. The more people view and critique it, the greater purpose the art itself has served. For this reason, I insist on making this comment: No comment.
Brigitte adds: Well, since we’re apparently allowed (encouraged?) to produce “art” with bits of human tissue and assorted clumps of cells, what say we put together a proposal to record, on video, the experience of pulling nails out of the artist’s body – with her consent, obviously, we believe in choice, don’t we – and display the resulting mess along with all the, er, retrieved bits (with or without Vaseline, I’m not difficult), and see what the artist says? Would she think such a project likely to “provoke inquiry”?
Oh, and while we’re at it, how about we ask women who are grieving their miscarried babies for their opinion on the subject?
Update: Get the full story below: The Yale site is crashing–probably due to too much traffic.
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process. [Read more…]