Artistic Standards for a Liberal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

ljmac -> Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 12:04:24 PM)

The Ivy League art major repeatedly impregnanted herself with semen from multiple donors. After becoming pregnant she gave herself abortifacients. She then video recorded the discharge of tissue and saved it. The video and tissue have become her senior art project. The 'artist' and killer of her children says, "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

While this might seem outrageous, it really isn't much different than other 'art' liberals have produced. Remember Jesus in a jar of urine art? How about the portrait of Jesus' mother made with feces? Or the 'performance artists' who've used bodily excreted substances as part of their performance?

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513



Jhud -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 12:23:53 PM)

I think 'artisitic standards' has become an oxymoron in our culture.

There are no barriers to free expression under liberalism, unless of course it is a sincere religious expression or one that in any way implies criticism of a protected class of victims.



colliefan -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 1:11:25 PM)

Judg 21:25 (ESV) 25In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.



GroupW -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 3:06:24 PM)

I wouldn't exactly call this "artistic standards for liberals". Personally, as a liberal, there's a big difference between artistics standards and blatant stupidity.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on idiocy



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 3:20:33 PM)

[:'(]



aslouie -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 5:15:17 PM)

That kind of reminds me of this old joke I recalled from Family Guy:

What's the difference between pornography and art?
A government grant!



aslouie -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 5:20:27 PM)

But on a more serious note, this sort of shock art for shock's sake reminds me of the cynical premise/themes behind the Dan Clowes movie, Art School Confidential, when the aforementioned director states that many of those who attend these expensive, post-secondary schools are likely to be a bunch of talentless jerks, who unsuspectingly parodied themselves, possibly in their personal quest to channel what they deemed as "self expression."

At my age, I'm not that surprised that this form of artistic standards are even being deemed anywhere close as standards, period...

...and I'm saying all of this as an aspiring artisan (of the literary & cinematic variety), trying to get past my post-collegiate issues of past grudges real and/or imagined![>:]



ljmac -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 5:47:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

I wouldn't exactly call this "artistic standards for liberals". Personally, as a liberal, there's a big difference between artistics standards and blatant stupidity.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on idiocy


Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.



rlj -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 7:12:33 PM)

quote:

Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.


The liberals in this link pretty much agree that this stuff is disgusting.

quote:

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."


I never thought I'd hear a pro lifer and a pro choicer come this close to agreeing with something ever on a campus.



henny -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 8:59:44 PM)

Good performance art is really, really, hard to do. In fact it's almost impossible to pull off without looking stupid. The good stuff will usually have some sort of theoretical basis behind it, or a clear objective or point, or functions as some sort of social experiment. But 99.9% of the time performance art is just a refuge for those who have no real artistic talent.

Merely seeking to "inspire discourse," as this girl says, is the mantra of a talentless hack.

Anybody and their mom can inspire discourse.

This is just meant to shock and screams of desperation.

Plus it is really unethical. If she meant it as some sort of pro-choice statement, it's only going to backfire.



GroupW -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/17/2008 10:12:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

I wouldn't exactly call this "artistic standards for liberals". Personally, as a liberal, there's a big difference between artistics standards and blatant stupidity.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on idiocy


Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.


There are stupid liberals and stupid conservatives. Stupid conservatives do different stupid things.



ljmac -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 12:23:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: GroupW

I wouldn't exactly call this "artistic standards for liberals". Personally, as a liberal, there's a big difference between artistics standards and blatant stupidity.

Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on idiocy


Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.


There are stupid liberals and stupid conservatives. Stupid conservatives do different stupid things.


I didn't disagree.

When I saw this story I questioned if it was really true, so I did a Google search and found multiple organizations carrying the story. All the sites carried pretty much the same information. Now it turns out the the so-called artist was lying. Although she claimed to have done all the things I posted and were reported by the student newspaper, it's unclear if she did any of them.

Now the woman claims that the hoax was her performance art project, "...designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman's body," said a Yale representative.

The hoax is better than the real thing. She apparently didn't kill any of her offspring. But joking about it is no laughing matter, and it certainly isn't art.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080418/D903VVSO0.html

But maybe this story shouldn't be trusted either.



ak2007 -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 2:45:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.


Really? I suppose, then, that you've surveyed these artists as to their opinions on health care, federal spending, education, the environment, etc. and know them to hold liberal positions.

Or is "liberal" just a catch-all term to disparage anything you don't like?



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 6:50:43 AM)

quote:

Plus it is really unethical. If she meant it as some sort of pro-choice statement, it's only going to backfire.


That's for sure. I know some rabid abortion rights people and they find this disgusting.

Although, for different reasons. No problem with killing babies. They are calling it "self-mutliation" (which implies that abortion *can* hurt a woman, but they won't say it outright, of course [8|])



ljmac -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 12:09:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ak2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.


Really? I suppose, then, that you've surveyed these artists as to their opinions on health care, federal spending, education, the environment, etc. and know them to hold liberal positions.

Or is "liberal" just a catch-all term to disparage anything you don't like?


Oh, please be real. When Andres Serrano put a crucifix in a jar of urine, it overshadowed some of his other 'art' on display, much of it homosexual in nature. Putting objects in rectums and so on. Liberals came to the defense of the NEA, which helped fund the exhibit.

When 'art' of Mary made partially of elephant feces, the people who remained neutral or defended it were liberals.

This 'performance artist' was surely not a conservative.

When organizations attempt to present clean versions of Hollywood movies, removing obscenities and so on, Hollywood attempts to prevent it saying it destroys their art work.

Homosexuality, contempt for Christianity and abortion are the domains of liberalism. Not all liberals believe in this stuff, but those that do are almost entirely liberals.



blessedinnyc -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 12:45:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.

Sort of like the crowd that has gone around showing graphic pictures of abortions to kids for over a decade.



Veritas -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 1:33:01 PM)

That's a mighty wide brush you're using to paint liberals with.

I'm a pro-choice liberal and I find what she's doing repugnant.



1love1God1way -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 1:35:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.

Sort of like the crowd that has gone around showing graphic pictures of abortions to kids for over a decade.


Not that I agree with that, but they still don't call it "art."



ljmac -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 11:00:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

That's a mighty wide brush you're using to paint liberals with.

I'm a pro-choice liberal and I find what she's doing repugnant.


I'll never understand how one can find the dismemberment of human beings acceptable and still find something else "repugnant."



ljmac -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/18/2008 11:02:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.

Sort of like the crowd that has gone around showing graphic pictures of abortions to kids for over a decade.


Liberals don't like it when their values are exposed.



GroupW -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/19/2008 12:38:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Conservatives don't do this kind of stuff. This is the realm of liberalism.

Sort of like the crowd that has gone around showing graphic pictures of abortions to kids for over a decade.


Liberals don't like it when their values are exposed.


As one of a grand total of three liberals that inhabit this site, I personally don't mind when my values get exposed. This type of comment sits with me about as well as Mr. Obama's small town comment sits with many.



Marcus. -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/19/2008 5:04:02 AM)

I can think of at least 4 other liberals on the board.



everythingat -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/19/2008 6:52:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

When organizations attempt to present clean versions of Hollywood movies, removing obscenities and so on, Hollywood attempts to prevent it saying it destroys their art work.


I've decided to stay out of this one, because my view of art differs from a lot of opinions on here. But this one sentence kind of bothered me. First, in your defense...Hollywood very rarely creates something that can be considered art. But the reality is...maybe Hollywood doesn't want them doing that because these movies they're editing don't belong to them? It would be like me coming in your house and re-decorating without your permission. And your statement isn't entirely true anyway...ever hear of network television? I'm pretty sure they edit for content. But that's probably cause they paid to have the right to...

It's my personal opinion that art shouldn't be edited. Ever. Unless it's some lousy movie on tv. Then again, I'm one of the only few that doesn't believe the "garbage in, garbage out" mentality. Not that there's anything wrong with thinking that.



2shaye -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/19/2008 11:24:38 AM)

From another article,

"The Internet is still reeling from the 22-year-old’s claim Thursday that she captured a series of self-induced abortions on video as part of a final project before her graduation in May. Outrage exploded and abortion rights advocates and foes alike condemned the project described in the college paper, the Yale Daily News."

and,

"But then Shvarts (or somebody claiming to be Shvarts) denied the university's denial in an e-mail to msnbc.com, insisting that the acts were real.

“I did very much impregnate myself and then induce the miscarriages,” read the e-mail from her personal account that was sent late Thursday. "

All in the name of "art"? I just don't get it.

Full article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189690/



GroupW -> RE: Artistic Standards for a Liberal (4/20/2008 10:31:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

I can think of at least 4 other liberals on the board.


I missed two of them?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI