Abortion as Art

33
Aliza Shvarts, in her own words.

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages. I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity. From the 9th to the 15th day of my menstrual cycle, the fabricators would provide me with sperm samples, which I used to privately self-inseminate. Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding.

To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used. Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original.

This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body. The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse.

It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership. An intentional ambiguity pervades both the act and the objects I produced in relation to it. The performance exists only as I chose to represent it. For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.

This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming — the act of ascribing a word to something physical — is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term “miscarriage” or “period” to that blood.

In some sense, neither term is exactly accurate or inaccurate; the ambiguity is not merely a matter of context, but is embodied in the physicality of the object. This central ambiguity defies a clear definition of the act. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming — an authorial act.

It is the intention of this piece to destabilize the locus of that authorial act, and in doing so, reclaim it from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it.

As an intervention into our normative understanding of “the real” and its accompanying politics of convention, this performance piece has numerous conceptual goals. The first is to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are “meant” to do from their physical capability. The myth that a certain set of functions are “natural” (while all the other potential functions are “unnatural”) undermines that sense of capability, confining lifestyle choices to the bounds of normatively defined narratives.

Just as it is a myth that women are “meant” to be feminine and men masculine, that penises and vaginas are “meant” for penetrative heterosexual sex (or that mouths, anuses, breasts, feet or leather, silicone, vinyl, rubber, or metal implements are not “meant” for sex at all), it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are “meant” to birth a child.

When considering my own bodily form, I recognize its potential as extending beyond its ability to participate in a normative function. While my organs are capable of engaging with the narrative of reproduction — the time-based linkage of discrete events from conception to birth — the realm of capability extends beyond the bounds of that specific narrative chain. These organs can do other things, can have other purposes, and it is the prerogative of every individual to acknowledge and explore this wide realm of capability."


Me, me, me...blah, blah, blah...me, me, me...blah, blah, blah...This girl REALLY likes the sound of her own voice. I'd like to bonk her on the head.

Abortion as Art

34
Ty Webb wrote:And yet you're both getting to the same point - the art created dialogue only about whether or not it was art and nothing else. Hollow, pretentious, and masturbatory. I hate this kind of shit.


my enjoyment of this is subtly different.

i agree that she's a selfish, immature attention whore, i believe this without a doubt; she's probably even a vegetarian. her "statement" (which is far more offensive to me than anything she actually did) makes me want to vomit, she's so full of herself.

what i like is that people will never know which it is since she's deliberately set up a boxing match between herself and yale, to the detriment (albeit psychic) of "people who care."

some type of schadenfreude on my part? perhaps.

EDIT: if people want this art project to fail it's quite simple: stop talking about it.
Last edited by enframed_Archive on Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:07 pm, edited 7 times in total.
To me Steve wrote:I'm curious why[...] you wouldn't just fuck off instead. Let's hear your record, cocksocket.

Abortion as Art

35
Someone needs to tell the art majors of the world that outrage is not the same as debate.

I guess I'll tell them... Hey art majors! If you shit in a box covered with swastikas and wrap it in an American flag, it will not stimulate debate! People will think you're a crass attention whore, and everyone will be in agreement on that point.

Abortion as Art

37
Adam I wrote:"Hey chaps! I just ate a woman! Live! For art!"

"Kidding! But it's still art! That thing I didn't do!"


unfortunately its been done. google 'chinese man eats baby for art' or some such. for 'extreme' art i much prefer the guy who makes glow in the dark rabbits.

Abortion as Art

40
Ty Webb wrote:And yet you're both getting to the same point - the art created dialogue only about whether or not it was art and nothing else. Hollow, pretentious, and masturbatory. I hate this kind of shit.

I couldn't agree more. I'll bet she's not a mother. Probably never been pregnant. Fuck her idiocy parading as art.
"Whenever the words 'art' and 'rock' have come together, I make my excuses and leave" - John Peel, 2004

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests