So here I am, asking the question that I've asked more than a dozen times since becoming a college student.
What is this world coming to?
When an "art student" at an Ivy League college can "artificially induce miscarriages" and use it (whatever part of it-- film? Photography? Hell, I don't care) as "ART" is the day I would rather crawl into a hole somewhere and not come out again.
I am seriously considering becoming a hermit.
It would be very lonely, but at the moment it appears the lesser of two evils.
This is what the art student, Aliza Shvart, is quoted as saying about her project:
"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." (courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.)
I'm just not going to comment on that at all, actually. My point with this post was simply to state my terror (not shock or outrage, I've already covered that; this is outright fear) caused by this one incident in general relation to today's culture.
This affects me deeply. It affects me deeply because I can see quite clearly how hurtful and destructive it is to other people. Of course, the obvious response from this individual is, "I wasn't hurting anyone" and she wasn't; not physically.
I just wonder why, when we have wars, school shootings, murder, suicide, hate crimes and children starving to death in third-world countries, why we have to harm each other emotionally this way too. This has the potential of being physically damaging to a number of people. I want to know why this Yale art student thinks it's necessary.
Perhaps there's some deep, underlying concept that I'm just not grasping.
I won't rail on and on about it, I promise. But as an art student, constantly submerged in the idea that art should be "shocking" (a word usually associated with the term avant-garde, which to me is just utter nonsense) and "provoking," I start to feel like I'm drowning in it.
I want to know what happened to art, that though challenging, was stimulating, that was constructive to society and culture-- that, I don't know, call me crazy-- actually reflected the good in ourselves? You know, the kind that held up a mirror to our souls and reflected an inkling of truth and beauty?
Pshah. Far be it from today's society to be at all interested in truth and beauty. That's so last century.
But I mean, if you want peace, happiness and tolerance--the kind of things that are currently considered chic to today's activists-- it CANNOT BE A ONE-WAY STREET. We can't just promise to not blow each other up. Respect for life includes respect for each other's sensibilities. Why do you demand acceptance and tolerance from me but then turn around and slap me in the face with this shite?
Okay, I can handle Duchamp and his urinal "fountain" and Piero Manzoni's crud-in-a-can, but honestly, this is on an entirely different level.
And, though I hate to say it, because far be it from me to judge what should be considered art, this really makes me want to give up on the whole thing. If I'm to be associated, as an art student, with this stuff, than you can forget it.
Alright, alright, alright. I know.
It's childish and impractical. And abandoning my one passion in life would mean losing a voice against this nonsense in the art world.
Lord have mercy on us all.
3 comments:
I just happened to stumble across this post. I felt compelled to post a response even though it's been months since this piece was posted.
I wonder if you still feel the same way as you did last April...
Your sheer revulsion from being introduced to the piece speaks more about the effectiveness of the piece than whether it is fit for public consumption or not.
The world is not a pretty place; nor, is humanity pretty or aesthetically pleasing. Humanity is not good or bad. It simply is. As such, it is simply filled with all of the things, actions, and possibilities that are humanly imaginable or that humans and other animates are capable of creating or doing.
In order to understand the purpose of anything - you must understand your own reaction and what that says about you and your personal experience living in the world. Then, you must look at your society, the world, and place this experience in the context of the world's great well of human experience and emotion.
If you simply refuse to see beyond your own perspective because you feel offended - you will learn very little. And, granted, you don't have to like it- but, explain why. Reach into the very depths of yourself and explore why. Research and analyze the reasons why the artists may have chosen to create the piece beyond her statement. At the end of this process, confront the artist, challenge them with words or respond with your own art. Use the sheer disgust that you felt in experiencing the piece, and defend your arguement.
If, however, you fail to understand the purpose in the end, it is merely a sign that maybe you should consider seeing more of the world, developing a wider range of life experience, meeting more individuals who will challenge your own worldview, and reading more about things that invoke such a response before settling on educational pursuits (as such pursuits can be quite costly and oftentimes we enter into such pursuits right out of high school, regardless of whether or not such pursuits are right for us or are pursued at the right time for us)
I have no idea who you are or why in heaven's name you would choose to comment on this post (obviously without reading anything more into myself or anything else I've written.)
I find the statement that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "humanity is not pretty or aesthetically pleasing, it is not good or bad" kind of ridiculous. It almost sounds like "humanity" is an inanimate object. Humanity is made up of individuals. Individuals with minds, feelings, beliefs and the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
The point I would like to make is that humanity may not be good or bad, but humanity has so much the POTENTIAL for good. For beauty. Truth.
And it may just start with the small things, such as NOT harming yourself or others to make a statement or to hurt and offend people. Because this is what this kind of art does, and was -- in the end -- meant to do. Why is that necessary?
You won't answer my question. That is because you are one of those people who supports this kind of art. "Progressive" you call it. I call it destructive. And just the fact that you believe it's all in me for not "seeing beyond my own perspective" shows your support.
I might suggest that YOU dig deeper and try to understand MY perspective. Obviously you didn't do that from the start, or I wouldn't be adding my obnoxiously long paragraph to yours.
I could go on and on and on. But I've already gone on long enough. It would take me years to try and explain to you my perspective on this and try to make you understand why, but you still wouldn't listen. You would still insist that I haven't "developed a wider range of life experience."
So arrevederci, whoever you are.
Why do complete strangers (such as myself) seem compelled to respond to this obscure and outdated post?
Having read the entire post, I would have to agree with Percy's idea that your "revulsion...speaks more about the effectiveness of the piece". Typical. But hear me out. Believe me, I understand that shock art has been widely overplayed, but it has always been my belief that art should be experiential. This is to say that the goal of an artist always seems to be rooted in capturing, conveying, recycling, or otherwise translating intangible concepts into tangible experiences - experiences that elicit an emotional or psychological response in others. If nothing else, the piece was clearly successful in this sense. The most skillful rendering of a waterfall - while beautiful - may lack the essence of experience. A true artist can build more into that rendering, transforming the painting into an experience, but they can also employ other means - such as artificially inducing miscarriages - to push your buttons.
People HATE it when they ask you them "why", and you say "why not?" but I guess that's what I'm saying to you now. I think it is important for certain people to push the limits of social acceptance (and no, I'm not talking about dying your hair or piercing your body) in order to engender dialogue - and ultimately, understanding.
I would argue that while humanity indeed has the potential for "good" or "truth", those are not the roles of the artist. Art that appears to harm oneself or others can be hard to justify, but that which is disgusting or evil to one person may be beautiful or necessary to someone from a much different background (eg. Lakota Sundance). Society greatly distorts the way we view the world - whether or not we like to admit it. Beauty, truth, good, evil are all constructs unique to humanity - without them we're nothing more than animals. But sometimes it's okay and even necessary to be reminded of how flimsy our world views really are when confronted with something like this. As much as one stands by their convictions, those beliefs are still nothing more than a product of society. Perhaps the only solution is as you said - become a hermit! But I think a good, healthy debate is much more constructive!
Post a Comment