Interesting little piece of controversy here:
“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.”
http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
However,
“According to a statement released by the University today, Aliza Shvarts ’08 was never impregnated. She never miscarried. The sweeping outrage on blogs across the country was apparently for naught.”
http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528
All I can say is “interesting”.
When I was looking at my portfolio page earlier tonight, I could not help but think “Dependent” seems out of place among my other projects. Or, out of place in “Art”. Conceptual art. Serious art. Pretentious art. I feel like I would not see something like it in a gallery or a museum or anywhere similar. Not that it is tremendously creative or fresh, but it seems to me that those institutions would shun a piece like it. I don’t know why, either. It is not without meaning, and I feel that the concept is at least decent. I just cannot figure out why I feel like it seems out of place as art. It draws on the tradition of cinema, but films are art. Sure, you wouldn’t see a retrospective of Ingmar Bergman at the Art Institute, but his films are most definitely works of art. Why is there a rift between art and cinema? I suppose this is a larger question, and addresses several things at once.
Really, I feel like I am trying to do two things at once: conceptual art and film. And I feel like I have to decide between the two.
For the second workshop in my design class we had to make videos/short films. I went through several ideas and filmed a couple of them before I came to something I thought was good. It took me about an hour in my dorm room to think of the concept, film it and edit it down. Probably the quickest I have ever made anything, but I suppose all the tries before only added to it.