next »

[bstevens]

The Yale student's "art" may be protected by all kinds of freedoms (academic, speech, expression), but that young woman is very, very sick.

[santommaso]

It's a hoax. Keep reading.

[drangie]

Please see the thread:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,49192.0.html

[larryc]

I can't believe that anyone fell for this--it was such and obvious hoax.

[jpstreet]

The point isn't whether or not the abortions actually happened. The point is that Yale thought the abortions had happened as the student claimed and still was willing to display the work.  Apparently Yale will display anything if it is called "art". Where is a sense of professional judgment?  Would they display "performance art" that portrayed a gunman shooting down students in a lecture hall, if the student claimed it was performance art? Does Yale have standards of any type?

[gastr1]

These are very, very difficult things to call. Many artworks, particularly performances, have run right up against the art/deviance line-these are by well-known, important boundary pushers:
Vito Acconci masturbated underneath a walkway while viewers walked over him;
Carollee Schneeman pulled a scroll out of her vagina and read its contents to viewers;
Keith Boadwee made abstract paintings by pushing paint from his anus;
Chris Burden shot himself in the arm;

then there's Orlan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4816435/

All of these are shocking works that push boundaries on what is acceptable and treat the body as a canvas. Students are studying these works as investigations of taste and art, among other things. It's pretty difficult to tell them they can study this kind of work but can't do it, and even more difficult to discern a line to hold to. I tell my students they can do anything as long as they are not harming others or promoting the abuse of power; even that is too restrictive for some.

[bewildered]

These are very, very difficult things to call. Many artworks, particularly performances, have run right up against the art/deviance line-these are by well-known, important boundary pushers:
Vito Acconci masturbated underneath a walkway while viewers walked over him;
Carollee Schneeman pulled a scroll out of her vagina and read its contents to viewers;
Keith Boadwee made abstract paintings by pushing paint from his anus;
Chris Burden shot himself in the arm;

If the argument is "let's not dismiss the students' artistic bona fides" on the grounds that they are similar to these particular examples... I'm not sure how many people these examples are going to convince. 

On another note... are you SURE that was paint?

[gastr1]

On another note... are you SURE that was paint?

Yes.
I'm not dismissing this on the grounds of artistic merit--I would never have approved a student to actually do the performance unless it was a hoax, on the principles I stated above. My point is only that art has involved "degenerate" and transgressive physical acts before, as well as occasional illegality; Scandalizing cultural norms is certainly not new, either. Making a hard, fast rule about what is acceptable and what isn't becomes very sticky.

Case-by-case works much better, in my opinion.

[gastr1]

These are very, very difficult things to call. Many artworks, particularly performances, have run right up against the art/deviance line-these are by well-known, important boundary pushers:
Vito Acconci masturbated underneath a walkway while viewers walked over him;
Carollee Schneeman pulled a scroll out of her vagina and read its contents to viewers;
Keith Boadwee made abstract paintings by pushing paint from his anus;
Chris Burden shot himself in the arm;

If the argument is "let's not dismiss the students' artistic bona fides" on the grounds that they are similar to these particular examples... I'm not sure how many people these examples are going to convince. 

Perhaps more clearly put...google or jstor any of those names and find the amount of scholarship written on them, and that should convince you enough.

[the_honey_badger]

I dunno, I thought it sounded contrived or personally dangerous to no particular good purpose in 2008.  More student-y "how can I push the envelope just to push it?" than anything.  Having once dated an artist involved in the performance genre, I first thought: "haven't I seen/heard of this before? No? Then something like it..."  I thought it trite in concept and designed to be attention getting.

'Cause, hey, if you can't get known for the work, at least get your name out there and attract a bunch of defenders who might provide a venue for exhibition or funding.

[gastr1]

I dunno, I thought it sounded contrived or personally dangerous to no particular good purpose in 2008.  More student-y "how can I push the envelope just to push it?" than anything.  Having once dated an artist involved in the performance genre, I first thought: "haven't I seen/heard of this before? No? Then something like it..."  I thought it trite in concept and designed to be attention getting.

'Cause, hey, if you can't get known for the work, at least get your name out there and attract a bunch of defenders who might provide a venue for exhibition or funding.

I'm in agreement for the most part, though much of this does have to do with artistic intent, and whether the student actually had ideas of any merit regarding the work's implications. There is nothing inherently wrong with using the media to generate discussion, although certainly it is possible to generate the "wrong" kind of discussion, and creating work that questions cultural value systems, including what "art" actually is, is not wrong either...

Just sayin': I personally would not have approved of the actual abortion part of it. But if it's a hoax, and was intended to be throughout, well, pushing boundaries and asking questions, even if people are outraged in the process, is what even the most now-conventional-to-our-eyes art has done for hundreds of years.

Would staying within established norms be a truly research-oriented enterprise? Are there no controversial theories and works in your fields?

[the_honey_badger]

gastr1---part of my point was that I didn't think that in 2008 it *was* particularly pushing any boundaries artistically.  Performance art since the 1980s has featured similar types of things, hence, my reaction of "haven't I heard of this before...?" when first hearing the report.  And, in the first reports I read, I didn't get the artistic rationale behind it only the "provoke public discussion" angle which is political but not particularly artistic in any way presented.  Perhaps she did outline her motivation to present this as art but I was restricted only to what was available.

So, by 2008, I thought it sort of stupid and pointless on a personal level but, ultimately, in the context of 20 or more years of performance art that featured the body, sort of "trite" as a concept.

[gastr1]

gastr1---part of my point was that I didn't think that in 2008 it *was* particularly pushing any boundaries artistically.  Performance art since the 1980s has featured similar types of things, hence, my reaction of "haven't I heard of this before...?" when first hearing the report.  And, in the first reports I read, I didn't get the artistic rationale behind it only the "provoke public discussion" angle which is political but not particularly artistic in any way presented.  Perhaps she did outline her motivation to present this as art but I was restricted only to what was available.

So, by 2008, I thought it sort of stupid and pointless on a personal level but, ultimately, in the context of 20 or more years of performance art that featured the body, sort of "trite" as a concept.

Well said, yd, and I would tend to agree (but possibly holding out for the continued relevance of the female body as a political battleground).

[pyshnov]

I more and more think that her project, so to speak, has something to do with advertising herbal abortion-inducing drug. If so, this would explain why she insists that the story is real (otherwise no one would look for buying the herb). Yale should investigate this possibility and whether she has financial interest in this advertising.

[fledgling]

This just seems so sick to me.   The Orlan character that gastr1 talks about sums it up in her comment "Art has to shock to justify itself."  I'm not an artist, but will any serious artist here tell me that this isn't a load of crap?  Shock can be important, sure.  But this goes way too far.  And she shows us how out of touch she is by talking about being against "the idea of pain".  Really?  Give me a break.  Don't waste my time with showmanship about the IDEA of pain.  That's just silly.