Makes sense, but in modern literary criticism the artist's opinion about their own work is not privileged. I don't know about art criticism, though.

Okay, I understand what she's trying to say. But I'm not ashamed of exposing my ignorance here in asking: if those organs aren't meant for birthin' babies, what else are they there for? I really don't know what other purposes they serve, since any hormonal changes and cycles they affect still tie in with reproduction - whether or not you choose to reproduce.

I blogged about this briefly today, and given this explanation I get the point. The previous explanations given in the press releases about the human body and art rung false given what she was allegedly doing. The concept about ambiguity and the ideological nature of naming and defining is interesting. I wish this had come out first so that a discussion regarding that could have started instead of the conversations regarding morality that did happen.

I'm with Kate on this - what other functions is she talking about re: ovaries, fallopian tubes and the uterus?

They give me cysts and cramps? How exactly does a project about a process by which one can get pregnant and then can choose to try to not get pregnant show us how the reproductive organs are inside us for other purposes?

"Wide realm of capability"?

I wish she would enumerate because I'm missing those ideas.

once again, i dig this girl and her project. at least from an artistic standpoint.

alice--whether or not the artist's (author's) statements are privileged in critically determining the ultimate Meaning of a work (which is really new criticism, anyway, right? and which is about like 60 years old), they nonetheless provide some insight to people reading about her project and trying to make sense out of it.

I'm not getting it either. Sure, my vagina has a purpose other than reproduction, but as far as I know, I can't do anything with my ovaries and uterus except make babies with them.

i agree for the record that it's confusing what she means about ovaries and uterus as having other functions. it would have made sense if she had referred to genitalia generally or vaginas or whatever, i.e., body parts that clearly DO serve more than one purpose.

"distinguishing what body parts are .meant. to do from their physical capability."
I thought she was speaking to both the ambiguity of the blood and the process. Since she forced a "miscarriage" the 28th day of each cycle, she would never know whether or not it was menstrual blood or that of a miscarriage and in that way deals with the ideology of naming and identifying a process that is rather ambiguous. In another way, she could be
attempting to enumerate at least one other possibility for the ovaries/uterus which is menstruation or at least the idea that those organs don't have to make babies because one can have an abortion.

I'm confused.

I can't do anything with my ovaries and uterus except make babies with them.
Well, now you can make art with them.

This might just be because it's how I've always felt, but I think what she's trying to point out is that our organs aren't MEANT to do just one thing (or anything, really) - they might be capable of doing something, but that's not all they can do, and it doesn't mean they're SUPPOSED to do just that.

It also kind of puts the mind behind it, as if our organs were "designed" by a consciousness with an intent, to try and dictate what they're "meant" for.

Not to pick on Wildberry, specifically but that s/he presented the issue in a nice, tight quote.

"I can't do anything with my ovaries and uterus except make babies with them."

I interpret her point as you can use your ovaries/uterus/vagina/body for whatever you want. Yes, in a very literal sense your ovaries/uterus are "for" making eggs due to their limited options as mostly internal organs, but the artist found another purpose for them. In this instance Ms. Shvartz used her uterus/ovaries to make performance art, and a political statement. In a broader sense she's challenging the notion that other people try to be final arbiters of what YOUR bodies/parts are "for" and how you are allowed to use your own body.

Or like what Roni said.

It is definitely interesting to have her explanation. But relying too much on the artist's intent kind of reminds me of this poem, "Introduction to Poetry," by Billy Collins that I came across today:

I ask them to take a poem and hold it up to the light like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

What does her project mean to you? Why is it evoking such strong emotions? What does it make you feel about choice, bodily integrity, and reproduction? I think those are the more important, interesting questions.

Yeah, I'm sure that one of the purposes of having ovaries, etc is to make performance art (rolling eyes).

Here's another story about performance "art".

http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-02-23/news/public-enema-no-2

Really, these people are so narcisistic.

Wow, I really really love this. It fits along very nicely with a concept I've held for myself personally for a while, which is that I do not have reproductive organs.

Since none of the organs in my body will ever be allowed (by me) to facilitate actual reproduction, I've re-assigned their function as pleasurable organs and hormone regulation/production only. It's nice not having any reproductive organs!

Roni: "In a broader sense she's challenging the notion that other people try to be final arbiters of what YOUR bodies/parts are "for" and how you are allowed to use your own body."

Exactly.

Shvarts isn't only talking about genitalia. She also writes about "mouths, anuses, breasts, feet or leather, silicone, vinyl, rubber, or metal implements" and their 'purpose.' I believe what she's saying is that things don't have a purpose. Things have potential.

"But I'm not ashamed of exposing my ignorance here in asking: if those organs aren't meant for birthin' babies, what else are they there for?"

They're there just because the genes for them were passed on to us, thanks to those genes arising through mutation and the organisms who had it not all getting killed off before passing on those genes and/or stopped in some other way from passing on those genes.

"'I can't do anything with my ovaries and uterus except make babies with them.'
"Well, now you can make art with them."

...and back in the day, we could have fed very large cats with ours.

People aren't always on top of the food chain. :/

"This might just be because it's how I've always felt, but I think what she's trying to point out is that our organs aren't MEANT to do just one thing (or anything, really) - they might be capable of doing something, but that's not all they can do, and it doesn't mean they're SUPPOSED to do just that."

Exactly!

if those organs aren't meant for birthin' babies, what else are they there for? I really don't know what other purposes they serve, since any hormonal changes and cycles they affect still tie in with reproduction - whether or not you choose to reproduce.

the point is not that "those organs aren't meant for birthin' babies," but that that is what is considered a "natural" function and thus, the only and right one. she's trying to explore the idea that there are so-called "unnatural" purposes as well and that there is nothing unnatural about them; that just because a body part serves a function, it is not up to others to judge how you use that part AND the very ability of that part to be used in ways that are socially deemed "unnatural" is what makes them "natural" uses.

hrm. did that come across as I meant it at all?

So I get it. Forgive the art historian in me, but here's how I see her work.

There's some Joseph Beuys in the writing of the narritive/story that she's telling about this conversation with her body.

She's got a little bit of Chris Burden in the "body art" category. He did much work that established "Body Art" classification, including self-torture, etc.

She's got a little bit of Matthew Barney in the Vaseline (just google him, believe me), and the amount of herself that she puts into the work.

She channels a little bit of Tracey Emin's abortion works. Emin talks much about her failed abortion, that quite literally ended in her not-aborted fetus falling out from between her legs when she was on the way to the hospital.

I just worry about what could/might happen to her down the line when she might want to have a child. I don't like that she went off on her own and took some herbs, that, without the proper medical help - even that of a midwife, if she didn't want to get a doctor involved- could have prevented serious damage. This "taking medicine into her own hands" reminds me too much of coat-hanger abortions. I'm all about knowing my body and what my body can do, but... there is a difference between causing irreperable damage and having the "potential" of which she speaks.

I was unsure about how I felt about this art piece / experiment until reading the artist's own statement- and now I totally dig it. I don't think I would want to go see the actual videos of her bleeding into a cup, but I love the thoughts about the body that she's trying to promote.

As far as the comments of people who say that their uterus and ovaries can do nothing but create life, I actually view what she did in this piece to be a great example of something else your uterus and ovaries can do: destroy life. (And, before you all start getting the wrong image, I'm not talking about running wild in the city and unleashing death with super-strong kegels). In this case, she never knew if she was actually miscarry or simply having her period, as obviously she controlled that with whatever herbs she was taking. But just as many embryos don't attach to the uterine lining and are therefore "miscarried" during the menstrual cycle (I don't believe it to be a miscarriage, as I don't think of it as a life, but imagine it from a pro-life standpoint).

In doing this, I think she brings to the table more clearly an argument against the pro-lifers: that women's bodies and specifically our sex organs are just as capable of destroying 'lives' (again, for those that believe that like begins at insemination) as they are at creating them.

I'm not about to grab some semen samples and a needle-less syringe, but I think it's cool what she brought about as capabilities for discussion.

So I get it. Forgive the art historian in me, but here's how I see her work.

There's some Joseph Beuys in the writing of the narritive/story that she's telling about this conversation with her body.

She's got a little bit of Chris Burden in the "body art" category. He did much work that established "Body Art" classification, including self-torture, etc.

She's got a little bit of Matthew Barney in the Vaseline (just google him, believe me), and the amount of herself that she puts into the work.

She channels a little bit of Tracey Emin's abortion works. Emin talks much about her failed abortion, that quite literally ended in her not-aborted fetus falling out from between her legs when she was on the way to the hospital.

I just worry about what could/might happen to her down the line when she might want to have a child. I don't like that she went off on her own and took some herbs, that, without the proper medical help - even that of a midwife, if she didn't want to get a doctor involved- could have prevented serious damage. This "taking medicine into her own hands" reminds me too much of coat-hanger abortions. I'm all about knowing my body and what my body can do, but... there is a difference between causing irreperable damage and having the "potential" of which she speaks.

I don't mean to make fun of the her message's intention. But the weird punctuation, the periods instead of quotation marks, had me reading the note as though I'm imitating Captain Kirk with his odd pauses and breaks.

To those asking what use uteruses and ovaries are for besides baby manufacture: I can't think of any uses for the uterus besides that, but the ovaries are not just egg-storage; they are an important part of the female endocrine system. I don't presently have a uterus, but I do have ovaries and I'm certainly glad to! If they had needed to come out too, I'd have needed hormone therapy just to start puberty.

The statements some of the commenters are making about reproductive organs make some sense to me, but I'm still not getting this project. If she were talking ambiguity in relation to how these organs are "supposed" to function, as some people here are, that would make sense to me. However, she seems to be talking about "ambiguity" in relation to the blood itself, and whether it came from her period or a miscarriage. Take this sentence for instance,

"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."

What does that mean!?! Is she saying that the ambiguity arises from the physical sense of what the blood is or from the politicized act of naming it? She also makes some points about the discourse surrounding her project? What is she trying to say about discourse through this project? How does the visual exhibition contribute to these points? It all just seems so vague, and perhaps just a little self indulgent.

Also, did anyone else notice the random punctuation? Is that on purpose?

Wow, L-K, I did the same thing.

So first it was real and then it wasn't and now it is again?

I am officially confused.

Reading her full article in the Yale Daily News, I now understand what she did. She self-inseminated several times throughout the year, and then, at around the same time she would normally menstruate, she took an abortifacient. The resulting discharge may have been included an aborted embryo, or may not have. Because of the timing, there is no way to tell.

Are we watching an abortion, or menstruation? We have no way to tell, and neither does the artist. For most of us, it is a question we want to answer, because our emotions about the piece will depend greatly on the answer. The artist denies us this answer, and in doing so, challenges the very necessity of having an answer.

As for the rest of her explanation (particularly, the three paragraphs cited here) I think it is a bit overwrought. I don't think that it adds to the piece, and I wonder how much of it is included to satisfy the expectations of her professors.

Overall, I think that it is a brilliantly constructed piece.

Performance art. Yawn.

I didn't care about this when it was supposedly real, cared less when she claimed it was a hoax, and am now just tired of hearing about it.

(I know others aren't so don't presume I'm telling you what to blog about. Just chucking my bitchy opinion out there.)

I'm pretty sure the bad .punctuation. is just a conversion error or something. If you go here:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528

the entire article is that way, not just her quotes.

As far as the project goes (and I know there have been a lot of comments on this), I do think it really challenges me, at least, to think about what it is that pro-choice really means. People do things that mess up their bodies all the time (drugs, etc.), so this shouldn't really be any different...? If nothing else, it does bring back into light the fact that our bodies are essentially black boxes to our consciousness.

Ok,her statement may not have been phrased perfectly, but enumeration? She made art with a statement, not a dissertation. There needs to be room for ambiguity.

But I think this comment is right on:

"Are we watching an abortion, or menstruation? We have no way to tell, and neither does the artist."

I think the piece is trying to get at the way we make meaning of biological processes and body parts--and their 'natural' functions--and how we don't know what to do when we are unsure. Clearly her blood read as menstrual or as the results of abortion signify differently--even though it's "just blood."

I think our discussions on these past few threads have amply proved that.

And to quote Deleuze, a fave philosopher, "we do not yet know what a body can do."

oh, and jirwin...don't forget about the Damien Hirst "shock" appeal!

:-)

She can call it art. You can stick a cocktail umbrella in a dog turd and call it art. Hell, if somebody hasn't already, I'm sure they will.

What irritates the everloving shit out of me is her use of the word miscarriage or forced miscarriage.

Call it art. Call it an abortion. Call it Rumplestiltskin, I don't give a fuck, but don't call what you're doing a miscarriage. It's offensive and cruel to people who have had real miscarriages (instead of publicity stunts).

She's free to call it art, but we're free to call her a pretentious asshole, too.

Pompous, pretentious twaddle. And hurtful, too, to those of us who have actually suffered from losing a pregnancy--either by way of abortion or by way of a miscarriage. I've done it both ways, and her wordy pseudo-intellectual psychobabble doesn't give me some kind of artistic epiphany. Her style of "art" doesn't make me think about my life or anyone else's in a new way. It makes me think that she's an attention-sucking, ego-inflated dingbat who's milking her 15 minutes for all it's worth. I sincerely hope that the ultimate realization of her artistic life culminates in a lifetime appointment working in the Wal-Mart craft department in Greasy Stump, Alabama.

I completely agree with Mehitabel: this is the sort of pretentious, over-educated, nonsense that gives modern art and women's studies a bad name. This girl has a lot of growing up to do, and unless she learns to speak and write English, she's going to find it very difficult to make a living, especially if she lists this on her CV.

I also agree that this is horribly insensitive to women who've actually had reproductive issues. I can't believe her adviser let her do something this ridiculous, and that Yale is actually letting her submit it.

*shudder*

What she needs is to spend a few years actually living and not navel-gazing at Yale. Maybe then she'll grow up and produce something besides a film of herself menstruating.

I caught this in a livejournal community post and it really brought something new to this for me:

no, there’s no magic line between miscarriage, abortion, and menstruation - that it’s all fundamentally the same uterus expelling the same damn tissue, sperm magic notwithstanding

just imagine - a major part of the controversy around this project rests solely on the MAGIC of male's bodily expulsion/intervention in a woman's body!

What akeeyu,mehitabel and ellid said....

Can someone explain to me what else a uterus can be used for?

The artist either had an induced abortion over a heavy period each month. Whichever it was, it wasn't a spontaneous abortion, i.e. a miscarriage. I agree that Shvarts should not be using that term to describe what happened.

As I said before, I think that this piece is brilliant. At the same time, I think that her statements about the piece are sophomoric. They detract from the piece.

Ellid: I hope you understand that places like Yale are a mixed bag. Some of the students and faculty produce astonishingly good work, and some produce pseudo-intellectual crap. It can be hard to tell the difference between the two (unless you're in the former group, in which case it's usually painfully obvious).

DRC - I'm very aware of what Yale and its ilk are like. I went to Smith :), and yes, we got art projects that were so over-intellectualized that they made the rest of us laugh. We also got a lot of brilliant projects.

And then there was the guest professor at Mount Holyoke a few years ago who decided to teach a course on the history and practice of burlesque and stripping. It sounded like a fascinating course, except that the students had the choice of either writing a paper or developing a strip routine *and performing it at the local "gentlemen's club".* That one pissed off a lot of people, including the parents of the students who'd been encouraged to shake their booty at Castaways Lounge in Whately.....

"Can someone explain to me what else a uterus can be used for?"

Helping hold the other abdominal organs like the bladder in place (likewise, each abdominal helps hold the others in place).

Menstruation (an experience some people value having, even while some of the rest of us don't like our periods).

Organ donation to someone else who couldn't keep her own uterus and wants to get pregnant.

Feeding plants after some kinds of green-burial funeral.

Hormone secretion?

I heard the uterine muscle spasms during good sex/masturbation/etc. enhance orgasm.

"I completely agree with Mehitabel: this is the sort of pretentious, over-educated, nonsense that gives modern art and women's studies a bad name. This girl has a lot of growing up to do, and unless she learns to speak and write English, she's going to find it very difficult to make a living, especially if she lists this on her CV."

"What she needs is to spend a few years actually living and not navel-gazing at Yale. Maybe then she'll grow up and produce something besides a film of herself menstruating."

" I'm very aware of what Yale and its ilk are like. I went to Smith :), "

Well, if we didn't live in such a puritanical culture, there wouldn't be anything inherently "bad" about watching her menstruate either... I mean, it's hardly like everyone in our culture is out to help others as much as possible. Look at all the fat cat CEOs who are just making money for themselves -but do each one of them get villainized to the extent you're wanting to villainize this art student? No way.

And maybe it's a bit catty -but I went to Smith for a bit and was overall disappointed. So, I transferred to a different "elite" school that was harder to get into and found courses and thinking at my new school to be generally more rigorous all around...

"no, there’s no magic line between miscarriage, abortion, and menstruation - that it’s all fundamentally the same uterus expelling the same damn tissue, sperm magic notwithstanding

just imagine - a major part of the controversy around this project rests solely on the MAGIC of male's bodily expulsion/intervention in a woman's body!"

That's /exactly/ where I've been coming from... I'm glad to see others picked up on it though.

I understand how it can remind a woman of bad experiences with her reproductive system but how does it become personally insulting to such women? Does this mean that any woman who gets pregnant casually or who aborts is being "offensive and cruel" to those who want to bear children but can't? Or is it just offensive because it was a "publicity stunt" and women aren't supposed to publicize the actions of their female organs?

It's offensive because she used the word 'miscarriage' to describe what she did.

I've had miscarriages and reproductive problems, and it doesn't bother me one iota when women have abortions. Hell, I'd drive a friend to the appointment, help her with the bill, and take care of her with love afterwards. Abortion isn't the problem.

The problem I have with this woman's drivel is that assigning the word 'miscarriage' to what she did, she is mocking genuine pain.

I'd be similarly offended if she had completely consensual sex with fifteen people and then called it an art project and referred to it as rape. That would be belittling the pain experienced by people who have been raped.

Abortion is something that you choose. Miscarriage is something that happens to you, not a choice.

I agree Akeeyu, and I think that is what has rubbed me the wrong way about this whole incident. It would be one thing to say that there is no "magic line" between menstruation, miscarriage and abortion in that none of them constitute murder (I'm not even sure she even makes this point). However, this project is almost callous in its disregard for what these experiences actually mean for the women who are experiencing them. Sometimes when you strip away all the context, you lose the actual meaning. For someone who is supposedly so in tune with all of society's inequalities, she seems shockingly unaware of her own privilege.

I think the piece is trying to get at the way we make meaning of biological processes and body parts--and their 'natural' functions--and how we don't know what to do when we are unsure.

Well, except that, AFAIK, it's commonly understood that one natural function of a uterus is to squeeze out unwanted tissue. So, you know, using her uterus to squeeze out unwanted tissue isn't exactly challenging anyone's assumptions about what their body can do. It's not like she taught it to ride a bike or something.

I have to agree with waxghost here. The natural extension of these criticisms is saying that women who choose to get abortions for the “wrong� reasons are being insensitive and callous. People use and abuse their bodies in potentially insulting ways all the time (lame example, but Jackass anyone?). Why is this only a personal insult when it comes to pregnancy?

As for her use of the term “forced miscarriage� versus abortion - from what I can tell, she’s not the only person using it. Ex. http://www.naturalmiscarriage.org/. They offer the explanation that because it’s the body expelling the fetus instead of surgical intervention, they prefer the term miscarriage. I do think the criticism of the term is valid, but is it really just the term that is offending people, and not the project (i.e. “callous� attitude toward terminating a pregnancy)?

It would be one thing to say that there is no "magic line" between menstruation, miscarriage and abortion in that none of them constitute murder (I'm not even sure she even makes this point).

I was thinking the same thing. And yeah... if she made that point, it's obfuscated by a dozen layers of vague nonsense anyway.

For someone who is supposedly so in tune with all of society's inequalities, she seems shockingly unaware of her own privilege.

Indeed. Insulated is the word that springs to mind. I mean, she seems to think this stunt will spark some sort of constructive dialog--but, to me anyway, it just seems like a giveaway to the anti-choice crowd.

But it could have been a miscarriage as well. Women miscarry all the time without knowing it, and there is the possibility that if she was somehow pregnant and actually did take abortive herbs that those herbs didn't do anything but her body decided to spontaneously expel the pregnancy anyway.

I guess ultimately, I just don't see menstruation, miscarriage, and abortion as necessarily so different from each other. "Miscarriage" is defined as a spontaneous abortion, abortion seems to be basically anything that makes a woman not have a child in her uterus anymore short of actual childbirth, while the line between menstruation and very early miscarriage is not very clear. But I've never miscarried that I know of...

People use and abuse their bodies in potentially insulting ways all the time (lame example, but Jackass anyone?). Why is this only a personal insult when it comes to pregnancy?

Probably because most people, even those of us who are solidly pro-choice, perceive that there are deeper moral issues involved with abortion. We may view it as a necessary evil--but it's very difficult to find the necessity in this case.

Also, the drug use comparison up-thread is rather specious, since drug use is, for the most part, illegal in this country. Considering how many people are locked up on drug offenses while abortion remains legal, I don't think you can really say that consequences are falling disproportionately on Shvarts.

Probably because most people, even those of us who are solidly pro-choice, perceive that there are deeper moral issues involved with abortion. We may view it as a necessary evil--but it's very difficult to find the necessity in this case.

I think that's where you and many pro-choice people differ, actually. Many pro-choice people do believe that the fetus is just a part of the woman's body, and deserves no moral consideration. That's what I've liked about Shvarts' project is that, if nothing else, it makes pro-choice people tease apart their beliefs about the fetus.

I know there are flaws with the drug example, but if we talk about alcohol instead, then at least it takes out the illegal aspect. For example, I am an athlete, and it does pain me to watch other athletes drink excessively (and then still perform better than me :P). Obviously athletic performance is not as emotionally charged, but at the same time, do I have a right to judge someone else for risking their talents (or flaunting them) just because I can't achieve what they do? Or, with the Jackass example, they do things like burn themselves - isn't that insulting to burn victims?

I really don't want to come across as trivializing the emotional pain of miscarriage. I just am really interested in how seemingly equal "misuses" of the body are considered different.

I don't think that she believes one word of that drawn-out explanation posted above. I think she's a senior year art student who got panicky at having to go out into the world and try and make a name for herself as a legitimate artist, and she chose to do something utterly pointless but full of shock value to get name recognition. And anyone that argues against it has a chance of being perceived as an anti-choice, right-wing conservative, even if he/she is not.

As for her argument that ovaries and uteri aren't around solely to birth children--well, I'm sorry, but that IS why they're there. Their sole function, whether women take advantage of it or not, is to prepare the body to conceive, carry, and give birth to a child. Your heart's sole function is to pump blood through the body. Your lower intestines function is to absorb nutrients from food and push what's left out. Your ovaries and uterus, if you have them, are to manufacture hormones (that trigger reproductive functions), produce eggs (to create a zygote with the addition of sperm), and to hold and nourish a fetus. Do you HAVE to use them for that? No. Are they there for any other specific purpose? No. Even sexual pleasure is a nice side benefit to reproduction--a little incentive, if you will. And those uterine spasms during an orgasm serve to draw semen farther towards the cervix. Even if it's not there and never will be. Your ovaries and uterus don't know and don't care if you never have sex with a man. Or if you plan to stay child-free. They keep plugging away just the same.

Shvart's argument seems very pre-manufactured to me. She knew people were going to react. That's what she was going for, and that's ALL she was going for. That's not art. I'm irritated that she thinks so many people are so stupid, to be awed by a stuffy, puffed-up speech and a sad attempt at performance art. I'd like to see if she can do anything that can legitimately be called art, but I have my doubts. Where does she go from here? GG Allin re-enactments?

I think that's where you and many pro-choice people differ, actually. Many pro-choice people do believe that the fetus is just a part of the woman's body, and deserves no moral consideration.

Alright. I'd be surprised if they were a majority, though. And they're certainly not a majority overall, so the questions about why people are offended by this are disingenuous at best.

That's what I've liked about Shvarts' project is that, if nothing else, it makes pro-choice people tease apart their beliefs about the fetus.

Because, what, we'd never considered the issue before?

I just am really interested in how seemingly equal "misuses" of the body are considered different.

Well then you're totally missing the point, because obviously people don't view these "misuses" as equal.

Well then you're totally missing the point, because obviously people don't view these "misuses" as equal.

I think you're missing my point.

I don't know--to me, it looks like you're begging the question.

hillarypo8, your argument citing Jackass (which is probably more of a convenient example than an excellent one) presumes that these bodily degradations presented as entertainment do not offend people. I would argue the opposite, that videos of people intentionally damaging themselves or others are disturbing and offensive to those suffering similar hurts. Or that at least they should be troublesome to watch. The fact that videos of physical harm pass as "family entertainment" (America's Funniest Home Videos, anyone?) is to me a startling indictment of our culture.

As for the art project, I agree with the assessment that most of the controversy generated has been non-productive in terms of furthering discussion of reproductive rights. And it definitely feeds anti-choice/anti-feminism fear-mongering that women view abortion rights as being able to say "look what I can do!"

Mehitabel: I am also having trouble finding other uses for organs such as ovaries and the uterus then their obvious ones, (though I love Ayla's take on them), but I'm going to be a bit nit-picky and say that pleasure during sex is not just about inducing sex for reproduction (unless you mean in the way that all organism function is for the ultimate goal of reproduction like eating food is to maintain self integrity so one can later reproduce). Humans are especially great at not getting pregnant with every copulation. Women hide ovulation and are receptive to sex potentially constantly (based on personal choice, not ovulation). This suggests that sex in humans is a evolutionary more complex behavior then just for babies and probably serves a social function. It is suggested that this potential constant pleasurable sex is an adaptation for building romantic relationships among adults as a way to have more adults to parent our energetically expensive offspring that require years of intense parenting to become reproductively successful individuals themselves. Thus, pleasurable sex is evolutionarily adaptive for both male and female humans so they can have healthy offspring.

"I just worry about what could/might happen to her down the line when she might want to have a child."

I've read and heard other comments similar to this over the past few days and it infuriates me. We are so horrified by the possibility of a women destroying her ability to have children. Such a statement reinforces the underlying assumptions that 1. all women truly long to have children (we can't help it, it's 'maternal instinct'); and 2. that childbearing and rearing is the ulimate goal/role for women. The first step in achieving and maintaining true reproductive freedom is refusing to see women primarily as the makers and caregivers of children.

Also, such a "concern" for her well-being sounds alarmingly similar to the Right's need to "protect women" by determining for us what can and cannot be done with our bodies. If this woman wants to possibly damage her reproductive organs, that is nobody's concern but her own.

Cooleen* - that is an excellent point and one that I've been trying to put the right words to. The juxtaposition of immense "concern" for her reproductive organs, coupled to a lack of such concern for people who damage their body willingly in other ways, is to me quite telling.

And Vodalus, I feel like we may be arguing a similar point:

Or that at least they [videos of people hurting themselves] should be troublesome to watch.

That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. They don't cause as huge of a public outcry, especially from "non-suffers", compared to this project. I'm not arguing that we should adopt a less sensitive attitude, but just that these different public attitudes are becoming much more apparent to me in light of this project.

I haven't read the comments, I'll keep that for later. Maybe I'll have a comment to some.

I am an art historian. I must admit that I specialize on Medieval art so I might not be totally competent. I'll ttry to be short.
Okay, you have a nice Medieval painting of say, Madonna with a child. On the first level of perception, you see a pretty lady with a baby. That's what you get even if you're from some totally different culture who knows nothing of Christianity and such but you still can enjoy the beauty of the painting, the colour composition, the carvecd frame, whatever. If you've grown up in the surroundings of Somewhere in Europe as I have, you'll quite possibly identify the painting not as a portrait of a woman with child but as a Madonna, she has, after all a gilded halo so she has to be some sort of saint.
And, when you're an educated smartass, you can discover all sorts of little sophisticated details of which I'll save you but many Medieval paintings reflect the contemporary thinking in philosophy and such. And, if you're an art historian, you can poke the painting, find out what technologies were used and such but that's rather a deformed level and my friends hate me when I destroy their aesthetic experience with my scientific rantings.
Now, then you have modern painting. Actually, it's a visual object or something, paintings are out of fashion because they are not original enough. So, you have a visual object. It looks like dangerous waste. You walk around, try to find something more than dangerous waste about it but you can't. You don't find anything aesthetically pleasing about that - and in my opinion aesthetic pleasure is one of the purposes of art and one of its definition. You don't find anything interesting about the heap of dangerous waste. You cannot find out why it should be art at all, the only reason for the object being art is that it's placed in art gallery. And then there you have a catalogue or some tag or description which only explains you what to think about it. I had a generic sentence about modern art but I forgot it. It was along the lines of The autor tries to express his existential insecurity in the dissonance of postmodern times. You can go on with this for pages. You can ascribe any meaning you desire to a heap of trash... but since it can have any meaning, to me it results in having effectively none.

I cannot see on the second sight (the first sight being a heap of trash) what meaning the "piece of art" is trying to convey. I guess I share similar cultural milieu with the lady so I suppose I should be able to get it. My general opinion is that if an uneducated person of the same culture cannot see the basic theme straight away, it's the fault of the author. What I got from the "art project" was that the author is a self-centered nutcase who just masks it behind art and some discourse on human rights or whatever it is.

That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. They don't cause as huge of a public outcry, especially from "non-suffers", compared to this project.

See, this is what I don't get--you keep acting like everyone has the same opinion about abortion as you, and that the outcry over this project is accordingly inexplicable. Obviously, though, many/most people still give the fetus some moral standing, and that's the source of their feelings about the project.

Waxghost:
"I guess ultimately, I just don't see menstruation, miscarriage, and abortion as necessarily so different from each other."

Really? Holy crap. Let me explain the difference, then. I'll use the two word explanation:

CONSENT
INTENT

That's the difference.

A woman who has a miscarriage generally does not consent or intend to have one. Yes, there are women who are relieved to have miscarried, and there's nothing wrong with that, but usually women who talk about miscarriage do so in terms of loss.

A woman who has an abortion is making a choice. Yes, there are women who are coerced into abortions or feel compelled by circumstances, but by and large, women have abortions of their own free will. One does have to sign consent forms to have an abortion, after all.

Let's not forget that words DO have meanings, here, and that those meanings are loaded.

Once again, miscarriage is an action that happens TO YOU. Abortion is an action that YOU CHOOSE.

Remember the sex/rape analogy I mentioned above? Saying that there's no difference between abortion (a procedure that requires consent forms) and miscarriage (something that occurs spontaneously, without your consent) is like saying there is no difference between rape and sex. I mean, women have sex all the time, right? Wasn't that the argument of that dilhole who compared rape to forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake?

This woman made a choice, or claimed she made a choice. It was a legal one, and I have no problem with her doing it for whatever idiotic reason she chooses. Seriously. My thinking she's an idiot in no way changes my belief in her right to be one.

What does still offend me is her using the word MISCARRIAGE to label what she did. If you take actions to induce a miscarriage, that's called an abortion.

One is not morally or ethically superior to the other, but miscarriage and abortion can be significantly different emotional experiences for the parties involved, and it's not doing anybody any favors to deliberately misuse the terms.

If she wants to stand up and own her actions, she needs to use the right words.

See, this is what I don't get--you keep acting like everyone has the same opinion about abortion as you, and that the outcry over this project is accordingly inexplicable. Obviously, though, many/most people still give the fetus some moral standing, and that's the source of their feelings about the project.

I wish you would at least read my comments thoroughly before proclaiming that I'm, in fact, very dumb. Yes, I understand that people have different attitudes. I'm just appreciating how this project has made everyone take a stand. And, it makes me realize that some people who say they are pro-choice are still very judgmental about the types of choices women make.

And Akeeyu, as I said before, I think your criticism is valid. But, she isn't the first person using the term this way (again, www.naturalmiscarriage.org). So, your generalizations about how the terms are currently used isn't 100% accurate. I'm not trying to say that I support the terms being used as they are on that website, but just that Shvarts isn't the first person to come up with this.

"I don't think that she believes one word of that drawn-out explanation posted above. I think she's a senior year art student who got panicky at having to go out into the world and try and make a name for herself as a legitimate artist, and she chose to do something utterly pointless but full of shock value to get name recognition. And anyone that argues against it has a chance of being perceived as an anti-choice, right-wing conservative, even if he/she is not."

Once again, I go to a school that is not quite as prestigious as Yale, though there's a substantial amount of overlap. And I have a hard time believing any of /our/ advisors would let us just fuck around on a senior project. I mean, I know a guy studying film whose senior project was to make a zombie movie -but all in all, for a student film it was damn good. I seriously think it's "stupid" to just assume that this woman must be "immature" or "stupid".

I'm not saying that a college's reputation is the be-all end-all definition of academic quality and intelligence for every student and faculty there, but from experience I also have to say that it definitely means /something/. I think you'd really have to at least meet and have a conversation with this woman before you could begin to judge her like that...

"One is not morally or ethically superior to the other, but miscarriage and abortion can be significantly different emotional experiences for the parties involved, and it's not doing anybody any favors to deliberately misuse the terms.

"If she wants to stand up and own her actions, she needs to use the right words."

Yeah. I mean, I can understand calling a miscarriage a spontaneous abortion (that's the technical term, right?) and calling termination-instead-of-childbirth of a pregnancy on purpose an induced abortion. Calling an induced abortion a miscarriage, OTOH, just seems back-assward, because induced abortions are not a category of miscarriage...

I wish you would at least read my comments thoroughly before proclaiming that I'm, in fact, very dumb. Yes, I understand that people have different attitudes.

I have read your comments. I don't think you're dumb--it's just frustrating to see you keep repeating the same dilemma ("why are people reacting this way?") while apparently ignoring its key factor. I mean, your whole Jackass analogy, for example, only really flies if you already agree that there's no moral dimension to abortion. That's what I meant up-thread by begging the question.

"Yeah. I mean, I can understand calling a miscarriage a spontaneous abortion (that's the technical term, right?) and calling termination-instead-of-childbirth of a pregnancy on purpose an induced abortion. Calling an induced abortion a miscarriage, OTOH, just seems back-assward, because induced abortions are not a category of miscarriage..."

Yeah, I looked the terms up in a dictionary, and I think what you have here is accurate.

Although, miscarriage can refer to scenarios other than and unrelated to a pregnancy. Which makes me wonder if the term miscarriage was originally used as more of a euphamism than a technical term. (much like the original use of the term "reproduction" to refer to human baby-making, as I learned recently). Which could make the definition of "miscarriage" arguably more disputable...

Akeeyu, I agree with you that there is a huge semantic difference between these things. No argument at all from me there.

However, the actual, factual difference is not always so clear. Often it is - I'm guessing in your circumstance, it absolutely was - but in these circumstances, it's not.

Thus, I repeat (with emphasis on the part you seemed to miss): Ultimately, I don't see menstruation, miscarriage, and abortion as necessarily so different from each other. They are definitely related to each other and the line between them is only clear cut in the categorizations of humans.

And that seems to be the artist's point as well.

It's my belief that art with a political goal often fails on many artistic levels. Let a piece of art exist as a piece of art and let people decide what they see in it. Artists' statements such as this woman's leave very little room for the exploration of the complexities of human nature that are so beautiful. Art shouldn't simply try to teach me a lesson.

And as others have said, creating shock is easy. Madonna, for example, has never impressed me. Even children know how to make adults gasp.

I think there's something interesting happening with this woman's performance, but all my instincts tell me she just knew exactly how to garner attention, thus making this piece more about the artist than the art. Plus, as others have also mentioned, since when does an abortion only require a handful of OTC herbs? Silly.

Actually, waxghost reminds me of another possible point here:

Women can do a variety of things that can contribute to a miscarriage -drinking, moving too vigorously, etc... It's not like doctors know exactly what could contribute.

However, we certainly warn pregnant women from using all kinds of products. Books like "Handmaid's Tale" propose a scenario in which women's behavior is controlled very carefully to maximize her chances of delivering a healthy baby.

So at what point is a mother's behavior something people can point to and criticize b/c of how it might have contributed to a miscarriage?

For those who would give the fertilized egg moral standing, it's an interesting question...

I understand the concern that some have expressed about forced-birthers picking up on this and using it to their advantage, but I don't think anyone in the world would ever get anything done if they stopped to worry about what some whack jobs would think about it first.

For those who would give the fertilized egg moral standing, it's an interesting question...

Well, considering that some of those behaviors can also lead to birth defects (certainly drug and alcohol use during pregnancy do), I wouldn't say the question is quite so limited.

"Well, considering that some of those behaviors can also lead to birth defects (certainly drug and alcohol use during pregnancy do), I wouldn't say the question is quite so limited. "

Well, I very deliberately did /not/ limit my examples to drugs and alcohol. Although, so long as we're talking chemical, our lifestyles result in people taking all kinds of chemicals that aren't good for our bodies, quite undeliberately (vegetables with pesticides, meat with hormones, old houses with lead, etc. etc.)

And if it's in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman may not know she's pregnant yet...

Hence, I think it's a complicated situation... and I asked a valid question

"So at what point is a mother's behavior something people can point to and criticize b/c of how it might have contributed to a miscarriage?"

"Well, considering that some of those behaviors can also lead to birth defects (certainly drug and alcohol use during pregnancy do), I wouldn't say the question is quite so limited."

Meanwhile, for those who would give a newborn moral standing even when we don't give fetuses moral standing, it's not whether doing X could contribute to a miscarriage but whether doing X could contribute to hurting someone else's body.

For example, an OK-to-criticize point might be the point at which someone has impaired vision because someone else who had a choice choose to drink a ton and give birth instead of choosing to abort or to drink less.

Before that point, there's no certainty that point would be reached! She might miscarry at the last minute or something instead.

After that point, it's just yet another case of someone getting hurt as a result of someone else's past actions (fetuses are parts of woman's and girls' bodies, and newborns are separate people)...

Mina, I'm not sure I follow.

Pregnant women who drink excessively or use drugs should not face any sort of criticism until the point they actually bring some tragically impaired kid into this world? You don't think it might be prudent to apply a little social pressure beforehand so as to hopefully prevent that from happening?

Totally late to this party, but I wanted to throw in my perspective -

I actually made an art film project on this same topic last year; I didn't perform in the film myself in this way, but I showed a female character jumping up and down and moving vigorously, as a reference to historical methods of abortion (I had wanted to also include herbal "remedies" but ultimately did not.)

My intention with my video was to make the connection between these historical methods of abortion, and the current legal attacks on Roe v. Wade, in that if abortion is ever made completely illegal again, women will once again probably resort to alternate and probably unsafe methods of action.

I just got kicked off of Jezebel for supporting Aliza Shvartz. Everyone over there apparently is very brainwashed with the conventional heteronormative values, despite what they advertise. I got completely torn apart for proposing that Aliza should be allowed to do what she is doing and that there might be a meaningful message in her art, even if it is a little confusing and perhaps a little flawed in its logic. You all seem much more in line with true feminism.

Just a general point...

I've been reading about this on this and other feminist blogs, and I'm really surprised at the number of people who, when disagreeing with the artist, refer to her as "a girl" (rather than a woman), saying she "has a lot of growing up to do", talking about her "classiness" and calling ner a "nutjob"... and, at best, paternalistically worrying for her about potential harm to her body. Would it be possible, please, to disagree with her, criticize her work, etc - without falling into sexist language?

I understand that, in a work of art (however you chose to define that), saying that the artist is a silly girl that needs to grow up is an easy way to dismiss it - but this is how a lot of women's work gets dismissed, and it shouldn't be.

Let's criticize this for it's own merits/lack thereof, yeah?

Just a general point...

I've been reading about this on this and other feminist blogs, and I'm really surprised at the number of people who, when di