One last thought, then I swear I will stop spamming the thread.
Absolutely, art classes should go beyond the technical skills. One of the fundamental concepts I learned in every art survey class for every medium was 1) how to make something pretty and 2) to disregard pretty as a primary consideration in my work. That the things I make are aesthetically pleasing, pleases me. But I don’t make things for the purpose of making pretty things, and sometimes, it’s the ugly parts that are the most important. See also: classical violin. What you see in the discussion of this piece is the ugly parts, but having not seen it, you can’t say there’s nothing pretty about it.
And even if there’s nothing pretty about it, again, that’s decidedly not the point; possibly that itself, is the point
I understand where the artist was going with that project, and somewhat admire it, for wanting to highlight the bloody aspects of feminine being and procreation.
But, she just did it poorly, as I see it here. Did she say she used herbal abortifacients as a “natural”, ie, acceptable way, thinking that would be simple? As Whynot has astutely said, an herbal abortifacient (as opposed to a contraceptive; she gave good info there as well) is a toxic substance, and hard on the body, not to be used lightly. Especially over and over. By saying “herbal”, though, it connotates “natural and easy”. Simple research would have led the artist to realize that is not the case at all. A plant that causes a woman to abort is not to be taken lightly. I’ve not seen the herbs she claimed to use, and, if she didn’t specifically say that, to me, it’s a big ol’ minus plus in the project. Poor documentation. Whynot, Have you seen the specific plants listed in this case? Did she even do that?
Yeah, it gripes me on a different level than most folks in this case, because by using, “Oh, ah, Herbs…”, without specific names, it sends a sense of terror in using herbs at all, and that is not useful in advancing knowledgeable use of medicinal herbs. Lame, thanks a lot.
NajaNivea Thank you for helping me understand the artistic issue here more completely.
Hey, I understand I’m on the neophyte side of the artistic line. I got a kick out of 4:33 because there is a little bit of truth behind it.
As someone who enjoys music a great deal I’ve come to understand it is the notes that are not played that makes a good piece. I love it when a band is playing together, each player connected to the next. The ability to play off each other is something truly special. Sometimes the person playing lead instrument is supplemented by another player who inserts a single note, at just the right time, at just the right volume, and at just the right interval of time.
Not many people realize that most live bands play 4:33 at the end of each set. Usually they do at least 3 different covers of the piece in an effort to get the most out of it.
Oh, I think there are several poorly executed things about this piece. The “herbs” thing seems to me a way for her to claim to have aborted herself, without having to actually go through medical channels for effective drugs–since chances are she didn’t really need them or want to take them, anyway. Which is not to say that herbs are safe or benign, and to have used them for abortive purposes on a monthly basis and without expert oversight would be stupid and downright dangerous, if she had actually been at risk for pregnancy. Therefore she could claim to have inseminated herself, and claim to take some herbs which might have just been something as simple as Vitamin C, wild carrot, or papaya. Still fits the parameters of her claims and the story she’s telling with her piece.
I don’t mean to blah blah blah about it, but I find the discussion around “what defines art?” an interesting one, and in studio survey courses it’s a topic they drill into you ad infinitum, since incoming students are pretty much guaranteed to walk in with a head full of “minimalists are hacks” and “abstract expressionism is overrated”. It’s awfully refreshing having that conversation with normal people. One reason I chose not to pursue a professional career in studio art is because artists are fucking insane.
I wish I knew more about music, and could appreciate it on a technical level. I only very recently learned how to make vocal noises that correspond with, you know, notes on a scale.
The problem here is you are asking us not to judge her art piece by the criteria that SHE wants us to judge it by, but by a nerfed criteria that YOU are judging it by. She wants it to be ambiguous, so ok, it’s ambiguous, therefore, she may actually have aborted at least one embryo in the process. You saying she pretended to paint with an aborted embryonic material, is as presumptuous as saying she was painting with abortions for sure. The point is that it’s ambiguous. OK, so that’s the criteria by which I am judging it.
It’s a cube wrapped in bloody saran wrap. That’s how she described it. It’s not like she described a sculpture or a painting. She told us the medium and the method. Involved in that was nothing that would require any sort of technical skill. It is pure conceptual art as she has described it. At best it could be considered a collage. My point entirely in this is you are bringing in all sorts of extraneous points that are irrelevant. We are not judging how well she sketched the nude model in her life-drawing class, we are discussing a particular piece. So like my ex’s ability to paint photo-realistically, that ability was irrelevant to people’s opinions of what they HAD seen. And in terms of Goya’s talent it is NOT assumption at all. There is no assumption there. I can look at ‘Saturn Eating his Children’, and KNOW that Goya is a talented painter, because he painted that ONE painting. That single painting by itself is proof that Goya can paint well, because it’s a well done painting. You are trying to conflate the idea of ‘assumption’ here. I am not assuming much except that I know what the piece looks like. As far as I know the piece may be the most fabulous bloody saran wrapped cube ever devised. This is not Britney giving birth on a bearskin rug here. That piece PROVED that the guy who made it was a good sculptor. I don’t need to see any of his work outside of that to know that he’s a good sculptor, regardless of subject matter.
The description of the medium and its application would be more ambiguous with a painting. I’d probably think it was sick, with the context you’ve provided, but the fact is that I have a greater context than that for Shvartz’s work. She has described it in detail.
This quote above is the most telling. It specifically is about the ‘verbal narrative’. You and I are participating in the piece as it was meant to be interacted with. Without seeing it. So clearly, I am speaking of the piece within its own context as she has desired for me to do so. You are trying to place arbitrary constraints upon the piece in order to make it less shocking. That is outside of the artist’s intention. She didn’t ‘pretend’ to do anything, she took a calculated risk, a risk that is small granted, but a risk nonetheless. The fact that she took this risk is worthy of judgment. Just as it is possible that she only pretended to paint with her abortions, it is possible that she DID paint with her abortions. That is part of the ENTIRE POINT.
Your posts sort of feel like you are trying to talk me out of viewing the ‘narrative’ in the context in which it was intended.
As I said with the painting taken it its singular context I can judge that he was a good painter, no analytical bullshit needed. Aliza Shvartz’s piece on the other hand is entirely the mythological narrative. I have included other pieces of evidence, her writings about her Mother and her first period for instance.
I have discussed it within a larger narrative, as she has explicitly stated she wants us to to.
The problem inherent in these post-modernist critiques is that they end up going nowhere, they do not propel life in any way, as this piece shows. Her questioning of presumptions of ‘reality’ doesn’t bring us any closer to an answer, it only removes for us the acts and means by which we ground ourselves in a common and shared reality. If she doesn’t use her body in the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it, her genetic legacy will end with her. There will be no structure to carry her narrative past this generation.
One thing I will give her credit for is that in her inversion of the narrative, your defense of her art has become a rejection, “She is pretending.”, and my rejection has become a defense, “The ambiguity is the intended result.”
NajaNivea By her own words the quality of the installation piece is irrelevant as the piece is actually the ideological context, and not the installation itself. I have experienced the ideological context fully without having seen the piece itself, and am thus qualified to critique it as art. The installation itself is merely the closing of the ritual that gives it its power and sends it out into the world.
This shows that the work in and of itself is as disposable as the theoretical embryos.
Actually, that was mostly meant as a joke. I get what she’s saying, though I think it’s stupid and poorly executed, and I won’t disagree with you on any of what you said.
The only point we continue to disagree on, is whether or not it’s “art”. I say, as I have been saying, that it is. That it’s stupid and poorly done doesn’t negate that about it.
We have a little game in our family when we walk in a city and see incomprehensible or atrocious public displays of so-called “art”. We turn to each other, point and say “oh, look, bad art.” I believe that’s the appropriate comment for this senior project. “Oh, look, bad art.” And then move on. Nothing to see here.
