Abortion is art [somewhat NSFW]

[Aella]

Dunno about you guys but I use my vagina as a purse.

When you're standing in line, do you have to keep your legs crossed so you don't lose the change?

[Lavik]

thats awesome

[Vuitton]

Dunno about you guys but I use my vagina as a purse.

I don't care until I see you make change for a twenty (from your purse) projected on a cube hanging from the ceiling.

[Correction]

She's saying that common notions (or "myths") of what body parts are "meant" for are largely irrelevant and far from absolute. Sexuality has moved beyond reproduction, and that's why breasts/anuses/silicon/rubber/metal/etc participate in the same realm of the human organs that were thought to be "meant" for it.

Similarly, ovaries/female reproductive anatomy don't have to create children anymore. They can, or they can not (via the abortificients she took), or they can simply exist as biochemical centers of femininity, or whatever else.

Doing something outrageous then saying 'just kidding' isn't art just because people spend time afterwards navelgazing abour meaning.

It's a practical joke. Nothing more. It's not fucking art.

[Beckwin]

Sorry dude, but you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to know why Dada was more than just poop with a face drawn on it (not sure where you're getting that from) then I can explain, but if you're just going to pridefully cling to low-brow "art is crap and meaningless" mantra then I'm not gonna fucking bother.

I know precisely what I'm talking about. You can play snooty "oh you uncultured heathens just don't get it" all you want but the very fact that many of the artists at the time would freely admit that they were mostly just trying to get a rise out of people is proof enough. I've been to exhibits (most recently the national gallery in DC ran a huge Dada exhibit just shy of 2 years ago), I've taken classes, I know about this stuff. And while, again as I already said, there were a top 1% of excellent and interesting artists, the majority of it was just a bunch of douchebags trying to stir things up. "Oh this will shock the Bourgeoisie!" *yawn* Just like how existentialist writing is limited to a small great class of Dostoevsky, Kafka, and Camus- all of whom I'm actually quite a fan of- and then a bunch of hack imitators.

Oh look! A dummy with a German army uniform and a pig mask. HOLY SHIT SHOCKING! Oh look, a guy drew a mustache on the mona lisa! Hey! There's someone doing a collage using words about war from newspapers! How trite.

You can stroke the Dada cock all you want for being the movement that challenged our concepts of what art is and I can think it sucks for that same reason because frankly, they're the reason some guy gets paid to piss in a jar and drop in a crucifix. It's not clever, it's not interesting, it's just trying to be shocking. meh. But then again, Dada was anti capitalist/pro socialist movement for the most part, a lot of juvenile "fuck the man" ideology so I'm guessing that it's your favorite thing so we can go round and round on this for weeks but we've both pretty much made up our minds on this issue.

First off, Dada wasn't the first or last movement with socialist agitation agenda, and there's certainly more to socialist agitation than "fuck the man", especially in the context of Europe during those years, you know, when there were actual revolutions taking place and new governments being born. On top of that, Dada didn't really get an acute political agenda until the Berlin group got rolling.

Second, you do yourself a logical disservice with the "only a few people were good the rest were hacks" angle to criticize the whole movement- you can say that about any movement within any artform and mean nothing of importance. Cubism was all a bunch of hacks except for Picasso and Braques, Pop except for Warhol and Lichtenstein, Constructivism except for Lissitzky, Tatlin, and Rodchenko, and Brit-Pop except for the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Stones. On top of that, a fairly large number of important artists were involved with Dada including Man Ray and someone who has been called by many the most important artist of the last century, Marcel Duchamp. The movement was also a beginning for sound art, an important phase for collage, and branches of it evolved into Surrealism.

And I don't give a shit how many classes you've sat through, if all you get from Dada is childish feces throwing, you obviously didn't learn a damn thing and validates my "snooty" retort to your unfounded initial statements. Dada started off as a rejection of academic formal values in art and a response to what the world had come to- oppression, war, and suffering. World War I was a huge turning/breaking point in thought, society, and government. There was a reason they sought to shock and subsequently redefine, and they wrote manifestos explaining it- this isn't Jackass based on getting loaded and rolling a midget down a hill in a shopping cart for a laugh.

[Beckwin]

She's saying that common notions (or "myths") of what body parts are "meant" for are largely irrelevant and far from absolute. Sexuality has moved beyond reproduction, and that's why breasts/anuses/silicon/rubber/metal/etc participate in the same realm of the human organs that were thought to be "meant" for it.

Similarly, ovaries/female reproductive anatomy don't have to create children anymore. They can, or they can not (via the abortificients she took), or they can simply exist as biochemical centers of femininity, or whatever else.

Doing something outrageous then saying 'just kidding' isn't art just because people spend time afterwards navelgazing abour meaning.

It's a practical joke. Nothing more. It's not fucking art.

Apparently it may not be a joke after all. It's obvious she has some ideological intent with the piece, and it's being expressed in a creative venture rather than a comedic routine, formal speech, or essay. It's art.

[Correction]

She's saying that common notions (or "myths") of what body parts are "meant" for are largely irrelevant and far from absolute. Sexuality has moved beyond reproduction, and that's why breasts/anuses/silicon/rubber/metal/etc participate in the same realm of the human organs that were thought to be "meant" for it.

Similarly, ovaries/female reproductive anatomy don't have to create children anymore. They can, or they can not (via the abortificients she took), or they can simply exist as biochemical centers of femininity, or whatever else.

Doing something outrageous then saying 'just kidding' isn't art just because people spend time afterwards navelgazing abour meaning.

It's a practical joke. Nothing more. It's not fucking art.

Apparently it may not be a joke after all. It's obvious she has some ideological intent with the piece, and it's being expressed in a creative venture rather than a comedic routine, formal speech, or essay. It's art.

Bullshit. She's no different from the Raellians claiming they've cloned people. The only difference is she admitted she's a liar doing it for notoriety.

[Beckwin]

Except she's created some documentation and is presenting the whole thing creatively. Instead of the knee-jerk "OMG THIS SHIT ISN'T ART", try talking about it's quality instead.

And again, there's no final verdict on the insemination/abortificients being true or false yet. Apparently she's maintaining that she did it while her college issued a statement that it was a fictional account. If the ambiguity is intentional, that's a whole other discussion to be had about the realities of abortion and reproductive rights.

[Nystul]

Oh shit the sound art. I recall an exhibit where you went into this room and heard a guy just making nonsensical sounds. And this artdouche next to me goes "brilliant!" and I wanted to hit him.

I guess I'm just not impressed by "art" that doesn't require talent. I can aprpeciate Picasso, etc because they paired natural talent with an interesting way of looking at things. Just as I think making something pretty without being interesting is lame (like that guy who does the cabins in the woods, sells billions of paintings of fucking cabins. Ugh, can't remember his name though). I guess you're just ok thought with something that takes no special talent beyond having the gall to do something unconventional. It would be like listening to a band who came up with a song that was one note the whole way. It doesn't take talent to do. Anyone can do it. You'd just have to be arrogant enough to do it and tell everyone how great you are for having done it. I just can't be impressed by that.


And it doesn't matter for shit one way or the other if its real or not. It comes down to the fact that her justifications are simply mundane. She makes no novel points, she introduces no novel concepts, and her justifications are often on shaky logical ground. The very fact that she could have come to the same conclusions about ownership of the body by getting herself constipated tells you that she *chose* the reproductive stuff because its a hot button issue. Couple the use of a controversial topic with some pretty banal justifications and you get what really just amounts to an attention grab.

[Correction]

Except she's created some documentation and is presenting the whole thing creatively. Instead of the knee-jerk "OMG THIS SHIT ISN'T ART", try talking about it's quality instead.

The quality is low, very very low. The only thing she's demonstrated is that if you poke people in the ribs with the Controversy stick, they growl about said controversy. What a revelation!

[Demosthenes11]

Oh shit the sound art. I recall an exhibit where you went into this room and heard a guy just making nonsensical sounds. And this artdouche next to me goes "brilliant!" and I wanted to hit him.

I guess I'm just not impressed by "art" that doesn't require talent. I can aprpeciate Picasso, etc because they paired natural talent with an interesting way of looking at things. Just as I think making something pretty without being interesting is lame (like that guy who does the cabins in the woods, sells billions of paintings of fucking cabins. Ugh, can't remember his name though). I guess you're just ok thought with something that takes no special talent beyond having the gall to do something unconventional. It would be like listening to a band who came up with a song that was one note the whole way. It doesn't take talent to do. Anyone can do it. You'd just have to be arrogant enough to do it and tell everyone how great you are for having done it. I just can't be impressed by that.


And it doesn't matter for shit one way or the other if its real or not. It comes down to the fact that her justifications are simply mundane. She makes no novel points, she introduces no novel concepts, and her justifications are often on shaky logical ground. The very fact that she could have come to the same conclusions about ownership of the body by getting herself constipated tells you that she *chose* the reproductive stuff because its a hot button issue. Couple the use of a controversial topic with some pretty banal justifications and you get what really just amounts to an attention grab.

should listen to some john cage. He is noteworthy for his "random" notes and lengths in music - it sounds like someone slowly walking across a keyboard.

I hate abstract art. I hate it more than I hate Lewis Black's "Root of all Evil" on comedy central - so that's obvious a lot. It's dumb, makes no sense unless you are among the "elite" that probably fake getting it anyways. If I threw my own shit on the side of a building to make art out of my poo and to get a rise out of people, am I a creative genius or a douchebag?

[Faris]

haven't read the replies, but i read the article.....
Here's an artistic idea for the little talent. How about she crawl to an artificial vagina, stay there for a couple of months, and then shoot out dead in a bathtub. I think people would rather watch that, than her killing babies for attention...what the fuck! read that again...kill babies for attention..wow!