(no subject)
Apr. 17th, 2008 08:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaSo, according to the Yale Daily News, a Yale senior conceived (sorry) of the following plan:
Not designed for shock value. Uh huh. You will be pleased to know that, although she's smearing a blood-and-vaseline mixture all over a bunch of plastic wrap in a gallery and showing videos purportedly depicting her miscarrying in a bathtub, Ms. Shvarts describes her experience as "private and personal."
As I said at Making Light: I don't believe a word of it.
College students (and their student newspapers) are probably a pretty credulous audience when it comes to claims about pregnancy and miscarriage. It's an area about which the vast majority of them will have very little experience, plus a great deal of fear.
But from the standpoint of experience, I question the plausibility of what she claims to have accomplished. How many times is it possible to conceive, miscarry, and conceive again in a nine-month period?
The article says she "inseminated herself as often as possible." How nice. But regardless of how often she inseminated herself, there was only a 24-48 hour window per month that she was actually fertile. A healthy couple has about a 20% chance per cycle of conceiving during that window. Let's be generous and give Shvarts another 5% chance because, as a college student, she's pretty much at the peak of her fertility. We're still talking about only a 58% chance of conceiving at all within a given three-month period.
And then "miscarrying," which seems to be the word she's using for induced abortion. After a miscarriage, it takes time for the pregnancy hormones to subside to zero, and then for the reproductive system to reboot itself and for ovulation to resume. Yet we're to believe that she went through this conception-miscarriage-conception process repeatedly.
But even putting all that aside, and crediting Shvarts with some kind of super-fertility, it comes down to this: If it were easy to produce a "natural," "herbal" miscarriage using legally obtainable over-the-counter products, there wouldn't be an abortion issue for shocking college students to make art about. It isn't. (Yes, I know that there are herbal products pregnant women can't use because they are classified as abortifacients. That doesn't make them reliable abortifacients.) Procuring a home-brewed abortion is difficult, unreliable, and dangerous. If it weren't, there would be no need for abortion clinics.
If it's not a total hoax from beginning to end, then I suspect that what happened is that Shvarts "artificially inseminated" herself periodically without particular attention to fertility (or the viability of the donor sperm - which also takes some finicky care). Then, at about the time her period was expected, she took herbs that are known to sometimes be abortifacients and collected her menstrual blood in a jar. "Edgy" and "daring," without, you know, necessarily involving any inconveniences of reproductive biology.
So, yeah: I don't believe a word of it. But let me also add: she's a fucking dramatastic attention whore. "She has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers," the Yale Daily News informs us. I'll just bet she has. It really makes me sick to think of her appropriating the shock, pain, fear, blood, and agony of the grief that is miscarriage in order to have a titillating story to tell at college parties.
Edited to add: Yale officials confirm that indeed she was faking from beginning to end. How very artistic.
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 Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."
"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
Not designed for shock value. Uh huh. You will be pleased to know that, although she's smearing a blood-and-vaseline mixture all over a bunch of plastic wrap in a gallery and showing videos purportedly depicting her miscarrying in a bathtub, Ms. Shvarts describes her experience as "private and personal."
As I said at Making Light: I don't believe a word of it.
College students (and their student newspapers) are probably a pretty credulous audience when it comes to claims about pregnancy and miscarriage. It's an area about which the vast majority of them will have very little experience, plus a great deal of fear.
But from the standpoint of experience, I question the plausibility of what she claims to have accomplished. How many times is it possible to conceive, miscarry, and conceive again in a nine-month period?
The article says she "inseminated herself as often as possible." How nice. But regardless of how often she inseminated herself, there was only a 24-48 hour window per month that she was actually fertile. A healthy couple has about a 20% chance per cycle of conceiving during that window. Let's be generous and give Shvarts another 5% chance because, as a college student, she's pretty much at the peak of her fertility. We're still talking about only a 58% chance of conceiving at all within a given three-month period.
And then "miscarrying," which seems to be the word she's using for induced abortion. After a miscarriage, it takes time for the pregnancy hormones to subside to zero, and then for the reproductive system to reboot itself and for ovulation to resume. Yet we're to believe that she went through this conception-miscarriage-conception process repeatedly.
But even putting all that aside, and crediting Shvarts with some kind of super-fertility, it comes down to this: If it were easy to produce a "natural," "herbal" miscarriage using legally obtainable over-the-counter products, there wouldn't be an abortion issue for shocking college students to make art about. It isn't. (Yes, I know that there are herbal products pregnant women can't use because they are classified as abortifacients. That doesn't make them reliable abortifacients.) Procuring a home-brewed abortion is difficult, unreliable, and dangerous. If it weren't, there would be no need for abortion clinics.
If it's not a total hoax from beginning to end, then I suspect that what happened is that Shvarts "artificially inseminated" herself periodically without particular attention to fertility (or the viability of the donor sperm - which also takes some finicky care). Then, at about the time her period was expected, she took herbs that are known to sometimes be abortifacients and collected her menstrual blood in a jar. "Edgy" and "daring," without, you know, necessarily involving any inconveniences of reproductive biology.
So, yeah: I don't believe a word of it. But let me also add: she's a fucking dramatastic attention whore. "She has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers," the Yale Daily News informs us. I'll just bet she has. It really makes me sick to think of her appropriating the shock, pain, fear, blood, and agony of the grief that is miscarriage in order to have a titillating story to tell at college parties.
Edited to add: Yale officials confirm that indeed she was faking from beginning to end. How very artistic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 02:39 pm (UTC)I find it somewhat funny (in a very snarky, I Want to Smack a Bitch kind of way) that her art shows so little understanding of how reproduction actually works. Or that so many people are so miseducated about the female body, about reproduction as a physical process that they fell for it.
If she'd said she just did it once, I might have believed her, but the fact that she said repeatedly was the give away.
Over in
This is a stunt as far as I'm concerned and to better market it, this person has decided to call it "art" and dress it up in a respectible guise, but it is what it is. A stunt. A publicity stunt.
As for the premise of what she was doing, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of pregnancy, abortion, and miscarriage both physically, mentally, medically, and socially.
What bothers me most are the casually cool statements from Shvarts saying that she wasn't trying to cause controversy, just provoke discussion. I find that maddeningly disingenious.
The thing is? You don't really have to do a lot to provoke discussion on abortion. Just put a lot of people (random people even) into a room, mention or even just have a billboard with the word "abortion" and people will immediately start dividing up and debating and chosing a side. It's like using a nuclear bomb to start a fire when all you need to do, really, is strike a match.
This sort of stunt? Only serves to try to bring attention to the artist. I think Shvarts probably sat down, realized she didn't actually have any real talent and figured that if you can't be talented in the art world, you have to be really outrageous.
The art itself, actually, failed. Because Yale outing her as a fake sort of ruins what she was going for (however disgusting), which is the equivalent of your painting falling off the wall during an exhibit. And without the illusion of reality, it's neither a performance nor art. It's just a bunch of (probably) fake blood smeared around and some artist who looks like an idiot and has done more harm than anything.
I secretly suspect strong (if psychotic) pro-life opinions from Shvarts, because I can just hear the pro-life, anti-abortion crowd saying, "Look, look, even if it wasn't real, she could get away with it! We have to have laws to restrict this kind of thing from ever really happening."
I won't start on how her monstrous indifference to how her is an insult to women, especially those who have been through abortions and miscarriages - or how her reckless disregard for people's feelings makes me so very angry that I have a hard time typing.
The best thing I think we can all do is just ignore this girl. Deprive her of what she set out to get, which was attention. I take great satisfaction in knowing that her fame will be short lived and will destroy her chances of ever being taken seriously as a real artist.