There's a story in Judges about a man who sends his concubine out to be abused by the men of the town in order to save his own skin. When he finds her dead in the morning, he sends parts of her body to all the tribes of
I imagine that the people of
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts [an art student at Yale] 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 . . . "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."
There's a detailed description of the exhibit in the article, but there's no way I'm going to post it here. All I can say is that our country is hurtling down a dark, ugly road if we're producing people like this woman. How did the creation and destruction of human life become a clever way of "sparking conversation"? We had better wake up.
Yale now insists that the whole project is a fake, but Shvarts is sticking to her story, saying her purpose was to point out that the "central ambiguity [of not knowing whether or not she was actually pregnant] defies a clear definition of the act [of miscarriage]. The reality of miscarriage is very much a linguistic and political reality, an act of reading constructed by an act of naming--an authorial act." Second, she meant to "assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form, It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." It was her goal to use her body outside the "narrative of reproduction" in order to shock people into acknowledging that it is the "prerogative of every individual" to explore other uses for his or her body. (This, of course, would be absolutely true in a postmodern, Darwinist, Creatorless world.)
Connected with the obvious atrociousness of Shvarts sick use of human life is her view of art:
"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."
Art is a medium for politics and ideologies? Whatever happened to goodness, truth, and beauty? To uplifting the viewer? Where did this new grotesque and ugly standard of art come from? Why is this the only standard she knows of? It's not hard to figure out that just like in the days of Judges, a country that loses sight of the living, holy, good God will soon be stripped of all beauty, and everything--good or evil--rather than being things to delight in or abhor, will be reduced to mere "statements."
Because of God, there is real beauty and it's tragic that so many people in our culture have never tasted it. It's easy to forget when we're feasting on the glory of God that most people have no idea a banquet like this even exists. Let this remind us of our responsibility to tell them.
(HT: Steve Wagner)


