Some people would say that contemporary artists are phonies who present shocking or disgusting works like vacuums or excrement that only deserve the label “weird”, never art.

According to David Cateforis, associate professor of art history, people who claim that something is not art either dislike or disagree with the piece and are attempting to take away its status as meaningful by trying to deem it unworthy of the title.

Professor Cateforis teaches my Art after 1945 class, and we spoke for quite a while after I heard about the controversy surrounding Aliza Shvarts, a Yale senior art student. In fulfillment of her senior art project, she repeatedly artifically inseminated herself with donated sperm and induced miscarriages with legal, herbal drugs over a period of nine months. She had planned to project video footage of the miscarriages onto an installation piece incorporating the blood from the miscarriages to be put on display from April 22-May 1 in Green Hall on Yale’s campus, but the University announced the day before its opening that it would not be shown.

The trouble with this issue, news-wise, is that Yale claims that Shvarts explicity told University officials that she did not engage in these acts, yet Shvarts maintains that she did. Because she will not make an official statement admitting that she lied to the press and because the project includes human blood, Yale will not allow the piece to be shown.

The issue of truth, however, is not important to the meaning of the actions as a work of art. The knee-jerk reaction of most people who hear this story is that of disgust, but it is unfair of any person to assume that he or she has the power to name something “art,” or take that name away from it.

Shvarts had honest artistic intentions when she completed these actions, and she meant to promote discourse about the politics of the female body and reproductivity, and call attention to the way that we ascribe names to physical objects to give them meaning: she said it “is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term ‘miscarriage’ or ‘period’ to that blood.” These are Shvarts’ words, taken from her column published in the Yale Daily News on Friday, April 18th stating her artistic intentions. Although her explanations are very heavy with big academic words and theoretical ideas, a very simple reading sums it up: Talk! Talk about what you believe and challenge yourself.

If we take the title of “art” away from this work, we are “refusing the challenge it raises of forcing us to think about what we believe” said Cateforis. “Art has the ultimate freedom to explore and question everything, and this successful provocation reminds us that the art arena is one where subjects are more open.” This “provocation” refers to the incredible amount of media attention this issue has received, from blogs to the Washington Post to Perez Hilton.

I believe that this incident, whether true or false, is one that will cause more negative results in its controversey than positive. Due to the nature of the vast majority of people to very vehemently oppose it, and the potentially negative light it may shed on the pro-choice movement, this call to challenge beliefs may be left unheard. Shvarts can and will be connected to the pro-choice movement by many pro-life advocates, but NARAL’s official stance, taken from its Web site, is “While it’s critical to promote policies that help prevent unintended pregnancies and make abortion less necessary, NARAL Pro-Choice America also fights to protect the right to safe, legal abortion.” Because this is such a hot topic in politics and morality, I believe that the weight of controversy and scandal will overshadow a positive aspect to this work and give conservatives everywhere a chance to link Shvarts to the pro-choice campaign.

The issue as important as the negative effects of this matter is: If we keep the title of art from this project, we are not challenging our beliefs. One’s convictions are the most powerful when they have been challenged, and by ignoring the ability of this work to promote discussion, we refuse to confront our preconceived beliefs and the opportunity to challenge or alter them.

As for what Yale students think, I asked my childhood friend Cassie Mitchell, a junior at Yale, and she reported that “because time has passed and Aliza has done some incredible work in writing her op-ed and refused to say anything else, she’s attracting more positive attention. Especially with Yale completely bailing on her. I mean, it’s not every day that Dean Salovey, arguably one of the best loved men on campus, calls a student’s work reprehensible.”

Although blood has already been drawn in the name of art when Chris Burden performed “Shoot” in 1971 in which a friend shot him, and the issue of naming first appeared when Marchel Duchamp turned a urinal upside down, signed it with an alias and called it “Fountain,” Shvarts’ work deserves to be seen as a work of art and deserves to be viewed with a critical mind and not a closed one.

I have my fair share of opinions about this work which I am happy to discuss, but they are secondary to my opinion that this performance should be seen as having a positive artistic intention that is ultimately coming to fruition through all of the controversy and dialogue in the press regarding its artistic intentions, morality, and political implications. You should assess all of this for yourself with an open mind rather than putting this paper down and saying “Eeew. This girl is crazy.” More first-hand news on Shvarts and the details surounding this case can be read at www.yaledailynews.com.

Ryan is a Salina junior in art history.