I'm in favor of legal abortions, but what this sick individual did...Horrifying. I can't imagine the long term emotional scarring she'll carry around.

I don't feel so good about the article itself.

It's full of supposeds and allegeds and unconfirmeds.

Still, who is one to say another's art isn't? She wasn't hurting anyone, except herself. While agree what she did to herself was stupid, her piece got attention and a reaction, and that was probably the point of it all.

I'll bet her art sucks, and she needs to be shocking in order for her work to be noticed.

Ah... so it was a dupe...

Someone else posted this story, and I was worried it had disappeared. Here's the version of the story they posted:


____________

And here's my comment:

BULLSH*T!

Fox wrote a story about it...and 2 people posted it here...so from the artist's standpoint I'd say mission accomplished.

Well, only if the goal was 15 minutes of fame. A week from now, this person won't be important enough to be a question on Jeopardy. And if you ask me… just doing something for the sake of getting your name in the news for a day or two… well, that’s pretty lame.

much easier for me to read it through the post.

I'm sorry I have to correct something that you have in your description. There is a reason for the blank canvas, and I am assuming your other statement was about the toilet in the louvre.

The blank canvas was the end of a philosophical movement known that started in the late renaisance. When Landscape painting and large scenes gave way to the baroque, paintings took a theatrical air to them, narrowing the picture plane, which carried on through the centuries until modernism, where the advent of modern photography gave a shock to painting in general, which freed a lot of artists to expand on themes used over the ages (eg. the picture plane) People began narrowing the plane more and more, till eventually, it went to the extremes, and a plain white canvas, which shows no depth at all, and the movement ends.

And the toilet was simply a philosophical argument, since no one was able to accuratly define what art was, it was following the train of thought that art is what the artist says it is, and the idea was built on with toilets hanging upside down, a snow shovel, fur lined china etc.

Art is not about pretty picutres that look like what they are supposed to look like, but a large all encompassing philosophical movement, which imho is the direction art has taken since photography has removed the need to be naturalistic in painting.

mind you, there are winners and losers in this whole movement, not everyone can be a picasso after all.

And lets not forget the trouble caravaggio got into for painting jesus with dirty feet, or for many artists of the early christian age for depicting pegan scenes. Shock art has been around for longer then people give it credit for.

Well said.

Frankly, I think of 2 extremes when considering what is "good" art: Some thing pleasing to the eye that I enjoy looking at; and some thing horrifing that I wish I had never seen.

The Scream by Munch, or 2 girls 1 cup, it's all art to me.