Yale art student stirs abortion controversy

Posted by Lance Gravlee on April 21, 2008 
Filed Under In the news

Aliza Shvarts, a senior art major at Yale, provoked strong reactions last week after the Yale Daily News broke this story:

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock — saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

There seems to be some confusion about the facts. In a statement issued on Friday, Yale spokesperson Helaine Klasky said that Ms. Shvarts had twice assured university officials that she had not impregnanted herself or induced miscarriages. But the same day, Shvarts began an op-ed in the Yale Daily News with this sentence: “For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages.”

Although some scholars defend the project on grounds of intellectual freedom, most people across the political spectrum—in academia and in the broader public sphere—have condemned the project. In particular, Yale officials have distanced themselves from Ms. Shvarts’s project. The Dean of the Yale School of Art, Robert Storr, said, “If I had known about this, I would not have permitted it to go forward.” Peter Salovey, Dean of Yale College, went further: “I am appalled. This piece of performance art as reported in the press bears no relation to what I consider appropriate for an undergraduate senior project. The Dean of the School of Art and I are reassessing what constitutes an appropriate senior art project and the manner in which those projects are mentored.” Indeed, this morning the Yale Daily News reports that Yale has disciplined two faculty members for exercising poor judgment in mentoring the student.

In my view, Ms. Shvarts’s claim that she impregnated herself artificially and induced miscarriages with abortifacient drugs is morally reprehensible—and an abuse of intellectual freedom. The high value that universities place on intellectual freedom does not mean that anything goes. Students and faculty still must exercise that freedom responsibly.

What’s your take?

Update: Yale administrators have indicated in a statement that Ms. Shvarts will not be allowed to exhibit her work unless she admits that it is a work of fiction—specifically, “that she did not try to inseminate herself and induce miscarriages, and that no human blood will be physically displayed in her installation.”

Comments

7 Responses to “Yale art student stirs abortion controversy”

  1. Kelly on April 23rd, 2008 7:06 am

    As an artist, I think this was successful art even though the student never showed the work to the public because it’s art that creates controversy that it is successful. If we could just take a look at her artist statement, i’m sure there is more then we are understanding.
    Perhaps they are not a very conception college because I can’t believe that the Dean of the college is reassessing the matter, instead of supporting the student. At UF we work with professors for our senior project and we must defend our work.

  2. Lance Gravlee on April 23rd, 2008 1:20 pm

    @Kelly: I appreciate hearing your perspective as an art student. You can get a better sense of what the student, Aliza Shvarts, was trying to accomplish with her project by reading here op-ed piece in the Yale Daily News.

    Also, art students at Yale do have to work with their professors, as you do here at UF. And in this case, two of those professors at Yale have also been disciplined for their role in allowing the project to move forward.

  3. Kate on April 23rd, 2008 2:14 pm

    I am also an art student, but I take a different side. As students, we are constantly warned by our teachers that art is not an excuse to do anything you want — “It was just an art project” doesn’t really stand up well in the face of the law.
    I am personally offended by her project and ashamed that she would call this art. Art has a history of brushing up against politics, but there is a distinct difference between creating politically focused art and an absurd social statement disguised as art. As art students we are constantly pushed to make original, socially relevant work, but I think she pushed it too far.

  4. Douglas Monroe on April 24th, 2008 7:24 pm

    I get it, I get it. The purpose of this excerise is to (1) create a work of art that (2) destabilizes normative assumptions about bodily forms and bodily functions. That being the case, my view is that the “artist” has failed on both counts. The problem, and all art students should know this, is that there is no established set of aesthetic criteria to place a work of “performance art” into social perspective. Is it art, or is it self-indulgent garbage? Given that there seems to be little agreement about what “this” actually “is”, as evidenced by the op-eds and the blogs, it’s difficult to move on to a meaningful debate about its merits, or lack thereof. Put another way, it fails to provoke the kind of debate the “artist” claims she was aiming to incite.

    Another problem: the concept itself is so repugnant that it alienates its would-be audience. I imagine the “work” will attract far less in the way of intellectual curiosity, and far more in the way of morbid fascination e.g. the types of people who incessantly download and view the “two girls, one cup” video from YouTube.

    Moreover, debate about the authenticity of the acts e.g. is it a miscarriage, or just menstruation, precludes self-relfection about our “normative” assumptions as individuals, and as a culture about the human body, its forms and functions.

  5. Douglas Monroe on April 24th, 2008 7:25 pm

    Ulitmately, the only issue this “work” calls into question is the mental health status of the person who created it.

  6. Brandon on August 30th, 2008 10:26 pm

    And what about those who have had to suffer through an abortion or miscarriage? This is just a mockery of the pain of others. Art? Art is the capture of beauty in the life surrounding us, of seeing and creating things that we wish to obtain. This is just a cry for attention. Losing a child, whether willingly or on accident, is one of the worst experiences a person can live though, and it is ultimately an accident. People dont just walk around having unprotected sex knowing that they are going to have an abortion over and over again. What this girl is doing crosses the line of morality in the question of abortion. I am pro choice in the belief that some people make mistakes and are not capable of raising a child. But to purposely get pregnant just to have an abortion? It shreds any lines in our society of right and wrong.

  7. Natalya Bull on August 31st, 2008 1:31 pm

    Quite frankly, I was disgusted and shocked by this woman’s behavior. Although I am pro-choice, I was shocked by this women’s incredibly immoral and cruel act. It seems that the idea of creating life is nothing sacred for her—-an inhumane sentiment to behin with. Likewise, to do such a tremendous thing simply for an ‘art’ project is sick. She lacks any empathy or understanding for the value of human life. This women needs to realize that abortion, although legal, is not a game but a serious decision that affects the decider forever.

Leave a Reply