Miscarriage-As-Art Hoax Revealed

Originally submitted by: barcode 2x

Before you read further, be warned that this story contains unpleasant and potentially upsetting information. A Yale art student created a stir this week when she unveiled her thesis project. She claimed that over the course of 9 months, she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" then induced miscarriages and aborted the feti. The miscarriages were filmed and played as part of the installation. Then she wrapped a large cube with plastic sheeting, coating each layer with the miscarriage blood. But the artwork has been officially debunked by the artist, who has revealed that the installation is just a piece of creative fiction, meant to illustrate issues of women's bodies, choice, and etc. Here is a link to an article for more details: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/yale-student-artificially_n_97194.html[/url] The initial story I read earlier this week, before the artwork was revealed to be a simulation, left me disturbed. On one hand, it is her body, and her choice. She can do what she likes. I did not approve of the institution that allowed the project to go ahead, however. Any professor who would approve this, I thought, must have questionable ethics. I compared the case to a similar story I heard on NPR's 'Radio Lab'. In this story, a young woman wanted to inseminate herself with the sperm of a chimpanzee. Her professor objected and talked her out of it. He said it raises questions about meddling with Mother Nature, not to mention the mother's responsibility to the ape/human child. But she kept the project within the realm of scientific exploration. She wanted to carry the fetus almost to full term, then abort the fetus and study its development. The experiment got no further than the idea stage. In both stories, a young woman is proposing to create and destroy life (if you believe that life begins at conception). In the case of the art student, her work exists to make a statement. Perhaps she is saying that the birth industry is going too far with their interventions. Maybe the rise in c-section births, designer births where the mother can schedule every aspect of delivery, from the epidural to the c-section, to the tummy tuck, all in one stop. Maybe the artist objects to the ideas of genetic manipulation that are floating about. Many discussions we hear nowadays suggest that within our lifetime, we will be able to design our own pets, children, even create new species. By the same token, perhaps the young scientist wants to study the pros and cons of this new phase in our evolution. Perhaps we can go beyond Darwin, and design the future of our species within our own bodies. What is the difference, one could argue, between creating a hybrid species in a test tube, and creating one within a female's womb? So. So so so so so. Now the ethics. The scientific world relies on ethics to save lives. Without ethics, a lab could never receive public or private funding. Without funding, no science. Without science, no future. No future = no hope, and no hope? Human beings rely on hope. Hope is better than faith! It's the 21st century, for god's sake! Does the art world have the same set of ethics? Does it have any ethics at all? Debates over science and ethics are going on all the time, particularly when it comes to birth, conception and the rights of a mother to choose. Within political and scientific spheres, there is jostling, pushing and pulling to control the lives of the unborn and the women who must bear them. But the art world is the one place where no one can tell you what to do. As long as you, the artist, are the only one at risk, then what does it matter what you do with your own body? Excepting that suicide is actually illegal. And improper abortions are illegal and can be very dangerous. There are laws governing self-harm, but these laws are loose. And many times, it is hard to get caught unless you turn yourself in for things you have done to yourself. The point is: are there ethics in art? Should there be? As things now stand, the artist has to impose his or her own ethics upon the work. No one can tell you that your art is right or wrong. You must balance the work with your own humanity. However, when it comes to public funding of art and artists, questions arise over content and propriety. Does art have an unofficial ratings system? Should it?