Are you talking about Chris Ofili, the guy who uses materials sacred to African people to accent his artwork? He’s doing fine, thanks. In 2003 represented Britain at the Venice Biennale, and he has his work in a successful art gallery in New York.
Totally different story with Ofili, based around a bunch of uptight white guys who totally misinterpreted his very moving and even beautiful work.
You are correct, and that’s been done too, not quite fifty years ago.
Sure, people are pissed now, but they’ll forget. You shoulda heard the outcry when Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal in a gallery ninety years ago and called it art. People wanted him strung up in the nearest tree, too.
This stupid cunt really needs to have the shit kicked out of her. I would be really happy if she were knocked into a coma and remained there forever.
This is the funny thing about these sorts of “art.”
What is it about some idiot doing something lame and ultimately unhurtful to anyone in the name of art that inspires this sort of response. Frankly, as long as people respond so vehemently to actions and works like this, then I’m glad there are artists doing them.
I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. It’s giving the anti-abortion people ammunition to use against the pro-choice cause.
She’s a cunt.
Oh, please. I wonder if all simulated acts of depravity get your fur up like this, or is it just the ones involving menstrual videos? Let me ask you this–if she had never made the claim about insemination, but insinuated it by doing the exact same piece, with the same menstruation videos, same bloody Vaseline and Saran Wrap, and doctored a couple positive pregnancy tests with horse urine to add to the installation, would you be just as mad? Or would you have even noticed?
Look, I’m all for transgressive art (fuck, J.G. Ballard is my favorite author) but only when it’s for the sake of art. Nothing pisses me off more than transgressive “art” that’s done for political purposes to “make a statement.” I hate the making of statements, since it’s usually very pretentious, and I hate it when people do stuff like this which is, as others have said in this thread, “trolling” in real life and only guaranteed to make the enemies of women’s right to choose more angry and worked-up.
Yeah well, if it can transgress the boundaries of someone generally into transgressive art, then she was successful at her agenda. It has made you clearly angry. It got my blood up too, I must admit. It’s depraved and disgusting, but the art world is generally so. The art world eats this up with a spoon, they LOVE to watch someone self-destruct so they can admire the beauty of how fragile the psyche is. We love our Van Gogh’s. The art world is one of the most vacuous institutions in existence. Here in New York, Chelsea is filled with so much vapidity that commands so many dollars it boggles the senses. It’s not just her, it’s the whole society of demon parasites that want to devour and feed off of one another, never content with what they have.
Sure, it’s pretentious. All art is pretentious and egotistical and wankery, and professional artists are the most pretentious, egotistical, and wankery human beings on the face of the planet. And making statements is kinda the point. If your work doesn’t cause people to react, you’re not doing your job. Good or bad are both wins, but not indifferent. I’d rather produce a piece that horrifies people to the core but gets them talking than to make something pretty that’s hung in hotel rooms and is instantly forgettable.
Sure, it’s trolling in real life, but it’s not real life, is it? It’s performance art. That’s, you know, the opposite of real life. 
I agree with what you said. Still, I hate political art. I hate art with a political message, I hate music with a political message - I just think it’s pretentious, and especially in a case like this, does nothing to help the pro-choice cause, and only serves to hurt it.
Fair enough, but I still think we need people making “statements” to shake us up once in a while. The entire world may disagree with what’s being said, but it does get us talking.
And, randomly, the funny part about the title of the OP is that the thing could just as easily be viewed as “anti-abortion art”.
I prefer the term Vaginal Life Support System.
In her case Vaginal Killing Fields.
That’s a bit harsh. I don’t think the purpose of art is to be remembered as much as it is to be appreciated. I certainly remember many of the bad meals I’ve had but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
I understand the desire to make something that isn’t mental white-noise. But crappy art for the sake of sensationalism is something an insecure person would try. This is an art class and I would expect the teacher to guide her student into creating something that people (other than the Manson family) could appreciate. It would be like a music teacher accepting a composition that consisted of peeing on a guitar.
NajaNivea Is dialogue its own reward? When I make art I want to communicate a particular message. The message is more important than the idea that something is being conveyed. It has to be meaningful and hopefully touch people for me to find it a worthy endeavor. GG Allen threw his feces at people, and people remember him to this day. But is that really inspiring? To revert back to a bestial state like Allen or to a place where connection with others is so tenuous that one has to engage in literal human sacrifice to make a connection for any reason at all?
You probably lose major cred as a feminist artist by even asking a guy to jack off in a test tube. (Let along doing anything to make it worth his while.)
But you’re not going to apologise, I take it. :rolleyes: