"Trangressed reasonable moral boundary..."

[proteanmix]

So I just read this article about this Yale university Art Major who hoaxed (I think, I'm still not sure) the country into believing that she impregnated herself and induced several abortions over the last nine months as part part of an art project. (Like all those italics? So much more ironical that "quotes".)

Anyways, I'm not really going to add my inconsequential chirp of a blogging voice to the outrage. I'm sure she knew what type of reacts she was going to get. But I did see a phrase in one of the articles about it that I liked "transgressed reasonable moral boundary."

I really like the word moral. It makes me feel good. I wish I could say it more often. I really don't because then I sound like I'm moralizing, but I'm not really. I've already mentioned how I like making ethical/moral decisions and deciding on them. What makes me mad is when people act like their is no reasonable morality that exists, but things like this just prove to me that it does. There are lines, people, they exist.

As an art project, should it have been allowed to move forward? Is it a valid piece of art?

Two days later, Salovey and Storr announced that an investigation had found "serious errors in judgement" on the part of two unnamed individuals - ostensibly her thesis adviser, School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, and School of Art Director of Undergraduate Studies Henk van Assen - who had been involved in her project before it incited mass condemnation across campus and across the country and that "appropriate action" had been taken against them.

What was in their minds? Did they thing her project was inventive and provocative? When people do these kind of things, I wonder what they reasoning is. I wonder if they thought they were about to usher in some new phase of artistic expression or development. It seems so purposeless and selfish to me.

It feels like you can't even tell people that they're lacking in judgment for fear of being called a hypocrite. There are things that are just wrong and I don't care how much rationalization/justification it can be dissolved into.

I guess she's saying she has a right to harm her body if she wants to. That seems like such a simplistic notion. I guess I'll get around to making a thread asking what are basic human rights. I don't see the right to harm yourself as one of them. If you can't respect your own life and body how can you be expected to respect another person's? If you're willing to violate yourself, you're willing to violate another person.

OK, I've reached the end of my thoughts on the matter.

 

[heart]

Sounds like mass moronization

 

[disregard]

In what sort of medium did this art present itself?

Was she simply calling her actions art? I don't see how it is an art project.. I see how it might be a "project" of some sort.. but isn't art something others can appreciate? What is she going to walk around telling her story?