Today's WTH??? moment, brought to you by Yale

[Tez3]

I really do fail to see what the point of the exhibition was. What on earth was the point of trying to inseminate herself ( I don't want to even think about donors here!) then taking something at the end of her menstrual cycle to supposedly cause an abortion? It's seriously weird whether she did it or just says she did it!

 

[tellner]

She didn't actually do it, as mentioned elsewhere. The Art department said they would never have permitted it. She later said that it was a work of "creative fiction" designed to "re-imagine the essentiality of the body" or some such crap and provoke "discussion". It sure as hell provoked discussion in the house of a friend who has had repeated miscarriages. By "discussion" I mean bitter tears on her part and vain attempts to provide comfort by the others in the room.

I was raised old-fashioned. Men don't hit women. But I would have considered making an exception for a few minutes there.

Art majors should have to be tested before being allowed to vote, speak in public or operate dangerous machinery. That goes double for performance artists :angry:

 

[Twin Fist]

Not so fast, now she is saying she really did do it

http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528

 

[exile]

Not so fast, now she is saying she really did do it

http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528

The funny (yeah, ha-ha ) thing about this latest denial is that there is now no way to distinguish whether these latest statements of hers are intended to be (i) truthful descriptions of real events or (ii) parts of a 'conceptual' work of 'art' which includes (a) fictionalized statements uttered as though they were true, and then (b) equally fictional indignant denials that those statements were indeed fiction. This infinite-regression mess is 'art'??

The shades of Michaelangelo, Leonardo and Picasso are standing aside, shaking their heads in utter bafflement that it's come to this...