Yes, but is it art?

Artists use the human body to create art. You get the usual posed-for works, including nudes, and you get the shock pieces. The artist tries to engage us to look at our world: what’s happening around us and how we interpret society. They want to temporarily shock us out of our usualness. And yes, by George, they all too frequently succeed.

Two cases in point: porn versus art and the recent reports about an upcoming Yale art student exhibition.

Porn versus art

I, sort of, and very reluctantly, understand how porn can and is used as a basis for art.

For example, check out this clip of an episode of “Sin Cities”, a TV show about unusual sexual practises. In this episode, the presenter investigates whether certain artistic interpretations and positionings of the human body is porn or art. The clip’s focus is an engineer who claims that females have more power than men, and that the process of objectifying females - using bondage techniques - temporarily gives men the feeling of power.

I don’t necessarily agree with the message or the technique used. This art furniture has a shock element for me. But this “art” caused, and will be the cause of, many future debates about the (female) human body and art. 1-0 to the artist.

Proposed miscarriage exhibition

Then we have this: For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse. This story is also covered here and here, among many, many others. And it’s claimed to be a hoax, for example here and here.

The story: Over a period of nine months, an art major at Yale frequently inseminated herself artificially and then, using herbal and legal means, induced miscarriages. She video taped the bathtub miscarriages and stored the blood. She used the video recordings and blood to create the art piece, in an attempt to stimulate a discourse on the human body and art.

The Internet is buzzing with this piece, and bloggers and commentors are trying to determine the extent of the hoax. Intelligent comments (yes, I’m being sarcastic here) include: “this is too weird to be true” and “would you trust this woman with your children?” and “this is a joke, or at least it should be” and “While the Pope is visiting America we have this taking place?”. And then, as some bloggers have reported, the artist is known to be a soapbox queen, and, accordingly, this art piece is just some more hot air from a wanna-be art celebrity. What I particularly enjoy in all this is how the original article uses the word “miscarriages”, whereas subsequent pieces substitutes the word “abortions”.

Is this story simply a noise, a distraction from the real events that are taking place around us? Are we just gullible? Yes, as the public, indeed we are. We all enjoy these types of issues; and yes, we’ve not yet hammered these issues into ad nauseam.

Hidden in this media furore is how artists use the human body to create art, and how the public reacts to this type of art. Typically, the artist is saying nothing about her intentions. She’s letting the public bicker and brawl it out on our own. So, let’s begin.

Am I shocked?

Am I shocked at the message, the art piece, or the artist’s actions?

And, then, why am I shocked?

No, I am not shocked at her art pieces. This isn’t the first time that an artist used pregnancy, blood, and foetuses to create “art”. I know that I’ve seen more shocking pieces from other artists; so seeing a cube covered in blood won’t shock me. Am I repulsed that the blood is miscarried blood? But, isn’t it all about how I perceive blood? Somewhy menstrual blood is perceived differently to blood from a cut which, in turn, is perceived differently depending on whom it’s coming out of - think here of a stranger’s blood versus a family member’s. What makes miscarried blood “special”, if this is indeed “miscarried” blood?

Then, the average woman can and will miscarriage, without knowing that they are pregnant - this is medically known. Women confuse the loss of blood with a heavy period. So, would it be more acceptable if the artist used menstrual - potential miscarried - blood instead?

I’m not sure if I am shocked at her actions, hoax or not. She claimed to have conceived, on purpose, to induce miscarriages. But then, here I immediately think of all those women who attempt abortions at home (the “stick a knitting needle up” remedy), all those females who hide their pregnancy, have fake pregnancies, have miscarriages without telling their partner, or kill their babies once they are born. Yes, there are many issues arising from pregnancy that society prefers ignoring. I am not sure where her actions fit into all of this.

And then there’s debate of when life actually enters the body: at conception or at birth. So, if a soul enters the body only at birth, this artist, per se, hasn’t done anything morally wrong. But if life enters the body earlier, then it’s a slightly different story. By the way, we don’t know the answer to this debate.

And pray, given what we have all done to fellow humans, are her actions that wrong? I mean the value of human life, surprisingly, isn’t that high and, unfortunately, I can support this statement with numerous examples of how we treat fellow human beings. Do we really hold life as sacredly as we would like to believe?

Am I shocked at her actions? Hmmm … am I shocked at a bulimic’s action? Or is that okay, because it only harms the bulimic and no-one else? Really? Am I allowed to make this comparison?

But, what exactly is she saying? She’s using a part of the human body (or “parts”, if you will) to create art. She draws attention to how we interpret and understand and use conception and pregnancy. In today’s world of 6.5 billion people, isn’t it time that we rethink our stance on big families and abortions? How about stem cell research, cloning, child labor, human trafficking, contraception, AIDS?

Is it a hoax?

Now, let’s assume that this is all a hoax and that she pulled the wool over the Yale news reporter’s eyes. I can’t determine from the “it’s a hoax” articles whether this story is actually a hoax. There is no concrete evidence in these articles to prove this story one way or the other. The “it’s a hoax” articles read defensively, or humorously, and there are gems like:

It’s all a hoax. Or if not an outright hoax, it’s a misleading tale of a girl who hasn’t a clue about how one becomes pregnant, what the fake drugs she took are really capable of doing, and the psychological pain of a real miscarriage.

Err, what? So, is it a hoax or not? Or is this “art” condemned as a hoax? Would we feel better if this was all just a hoax?

Are we, the gullible public being duped, in one way or another? This story has made our blood boil, and it didn’t quite stimulate intellectual debate. And yes, we enjoyed it.

Where, or what, is the art here?

Now, notice how, unlike the art furniture in “porn versus art”, here the artist didn’t even need the exhibition to generate the shock. There is no exhibition, only an article reporting on a future exhibition, and we only have the article’s say-so about the art piece and how it was created.

A simple article in a university magazine was enough to get the online community buzzing (and we will be buzzing for quite a while yet). So, where, or what, is the art?

Isn’t it the artist’s article and the related buzz? Could that be her art piece for her major?

Bravo, Aliza Shvarts!

You’ve demonstrated the power of the written word, and made it, yet again, a shockingly beautiful work of art. And again, the artist wins.

Using the human body to create art

The simple technique of using the human body to create art still has high shock value, and evidentiary, the mere suggestion of how you can use the human body to create art can, potentially, be more powerful than the actual piece.

I am not sure which art piece is more shocking. Both artists use, or suggests using, the female body - it’s sexuality and it’s ability to conceive - as a basis in their art. Is the one more right than the other? Does the one have more artistic merit than the other? Do we accept the one and condemn the other? And, is any of this art?

Quick update

It was confirmed that there is and will be no such exhibition. It is though, according to the artist, a creative work:

“Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art,” a Yale spokeswoman, Helaine Klasky, said. “She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.”

Hotel Rwanda

I watched Hotel Rwanda yesterday evening. Memories stirred of an Africa left behind.

 

Then, a finger pointed at me: “Look. Look. Look at what you’ve done.”

 

No, not physically I. I wasn’t even there.

 

But my ignorance.

 

My self-centeredness.

 

My inaction.

 

My branding of all of Africa and African as one. Typically African. That is just the way it is.

 

My heart bleeding, I walked out.

What is more effective than comparative advertising?

My post “Commercially broken” raises the issue of comparative advertising.

Comparative advertising doesn’t appear in South African media. Companies play nicely with each other.

But under a façade of advertising ubuntu lies a baleful reality: companies are dragging each other to the Advertising Authority of South Africa (ASA).

Are South African companies lodging complaints with ASA instead of creating comparative ads?

If a company claims that the ad or packing from another company copies theirs, it can lodge a complaint with ASA. Lodging a complaint has costly implications. As soon as the complaint is lodged, the company and its advertiser is required to immediately pull the ad or product if packing is under dispute until a ruling is made. And one complaint is typically sufficient to pull an ad or product. Only if ASA rules in the defendant’s favor can the company re-flight the ad or reshelve the product. Usually, the defendant is requeried to amend the ad or packing before they can air the ad again or reshelve the product again.

ASA rulings are bookmarked on my browser. The 20 most recent rulings listed per week on the ASA site give a fantastic insight into the mind of the consumer and advertiser; much better morning reading material than the backs of cereal boxes.

And recent rulings read like the Who’s who guide to South African companies. The upsurge of companies lodging complaints against competitors and non-competitors is staggering. Conducted in a tit-for-tat manner, reading these rulings is like watching a kindergarten of tattle talers in action.

For example:

Kimberly-Clark lodged a competitor complaint against a print advertisement for Pampers Active Baby nappies.

Woolies lodged a competitor complaint against Checkers’ advertising of their “CERTIFIED Natural Lamb” products.

Moore Attorneys, on behalf of MTN, lodged a competitor complaint against a Vodacom advertising booklet. Subsequently, FCB South Africa lodged a complaint on behalf of Vodacom against an MTN print advertisement.

(Side note: MTN has been very busy lodging complaints recently. They even lodged a complaint against Nando’s, because Nando’s ads looked similar to MTN’s from a couple of years ago.)

Etc, etc, etc.

This all made me think: so yes, in South Africa, usual business practise is not to initiate or create comparative advertising. But, as per usual business practise, you can lodge a complaint to the ASA, and keep competition out of the public eye.

Hmmm.

I’m confused.

I turn to ASA for guidance.

And lo and behold ! Well hidden, but nonethelesss on the site: Section 7 “Comparative Advertising” in ASA’s General Principles.

In short, comparative advertising is allowed, provided you don’t infringe the Trade Marks Act.

Well now!

So, South African businesses don’t practise comparative advertising because:

1. it’s usual practise not to
2. they don’t know that they can
3. the Trade Marks Act is costly and administrative-intensive
4. they can’t be bothered because ASA complaints are more effective at pulling the ad or product from the consumer’s eye
5. they don’t want the public to know that companies are actually competing against each other for business

Hmmm. Interesting.

Question: how does this impact on the South African consumer?

The South Africa retail place is based on the principle of let the buyer beware, but consumer education isn’t given, or, apparently, desired. And, of course, any advertising and negotiating ASA complaints costs are passed onto the customer. So, companies see the average South African consumer as a dullard who doesn’t mind paying too much for their products?

I wonder what would happen if someone in South Africa creates a price comparison web site … how exactly would everyone - companies, lawyers, and consumers - react?

If you want to read Section 7, click to read more …