2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 5/2/08 Section: Editorials
Yale art project response discourages free speech
The editorial printed in Tuesday's paper (April 29, "Yale student art project requires review, critique") was extremely troubling to read for several reasons, even more so since it was written by journalists, who should be beacons of free speech in a society.
The Student continuously points out that Aliza Shvarts' artwork meant to spark debate, but only created controversy through shock value; of course this allegation is only further made true by The Student's assertion of such. Instead of going into the artist's motives to any deep degree, it writes Shvarts off as an artist playing with the relationship between anatomy and art, which is true, but only at a very rudimentary level.
What Shvarts was attempting to do, as explained in a letter she wrote to The Yale Daily News, was to call into question the ways of knowing we leave unquestioned. The artist never knew if she had conceived, therefore she left the reader of the artwork to decide if the blood was menstruation or that of a fertilized ovum. This created a subversive ambiguity out of the concept of life in which the reader was the sole judge of what he or she was seeing. The artist took something as universally understood as life and made it ambiguous. But she made it ambiguous for a larger purpose.
Shvarts wanted to reclaim female organs "from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it."
She asks the reader to consider if reproduction is the only purpose for ovaries and the uterus. There is a myth that some functions are "natural" and some aren't-this is one reason there is bigotry against the homosexual community. Shvarts says this construct "undermines that sense of capability, confining lifestyle choices to the bounds of normatively defined narratives."
She questions if all women are meant to act a certain way because they are "feminine" and if all men are to act "masculine." Or are these simply products of our culture. Body parts are capable of performing in many manners sexually, but only some of their capabilities are viewed as "natural" in our society.
She is instigating a real conversation about sexuality and nature that apparently too many are too immature to handle; they simply look at the means to this conversation and cannot get to the ends. Sadly, The Student also fell into this unfortunate trap.
The larger problem with The Student's editorial is its prescription for future college artists. The Student wrote, "Student artwork should aim to uphold a mutual respect between its participants and its universities to avert a potential and unnecessary crisis, and there should be procedures in place to ensure this is a possibility."
The reasoning for the previous statement is that the "controversial" artwork created a headache for Yale with possible implications on its reputation and admission numbers. Therefore The Student feels that artists should have enough respect for their universities to not create "shocking" pieces of art.
Although some may say this is a stretch, it seems very close to the artistic policy of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Under him, the only art allowed was that in which there was no controversy. Ambiguity was outlawed in art; all paintings and sculpture represented either the benevolent Stalin, or the hard-working proletariat. No larger themes or critiques were allowed. This is an extremely dangerous policy that decimates the intellectual community in which it is implemented.
One is also pressed to question the length to which this loyalty to the university goes. If the editors of The Miami Student were theoretically to discover that there had been embezzlement by the administration, would they not publish it for fear of Miami's reputation or admission numbers? Of course not, and we should not expect them to.
If student artists are expected to only portray themes in a way that will not shock anyone, then we have demoted them from being artists to being solely painters and sculptors, people who represent at a base level without artistry. Bear in mind the artwork that is plastered on residence hall room walls today (van Gogh, Monet and Dalí) was considered subversive and shocking during its time.
Asking artists to self-censor for the good of the university is unacceptable and undesirable for a setting in which the intelligentsia are required, that being a university which values a liberal education.
Bobby Pierce
piercere@muohio.edu
McCain's disconnected policies will continue war
A couple weeks ago the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, testified before Congress on the status of Iraq and President George W. Bush's surge strategy. All three presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), had a chance to question the two officials but one failed to heed the concerns of the American people.
It is no secret that the long-time senator from Arizona has been a staunch supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq and in the hearings, McCain proved why he is the wrong person to lead this country. During the hearings, McCain voiced praise for the troop surge and the work of the American military but failed to address the concerns of the average American.
Everyone can agree that the troop surge has been a military success. Now the American people want to know: What's next?
Bush and McCain argued last summer that the surge was necessary to restore order so the Iraqi government could move forward politically. A year later, with the exception of the past few weeks, Iraq has seen a 70 percent decrease in daily violence, yet the Iraqi parliament has failed to come up with an oil sharing agreement, much of Baghdad is still without basic utilities, the bureaucracy is corrupt and bloated Iraqi security forces are still unable to function without U.S. support. All this being said, there is an upside: the Iraqi government will produce a budget surplus this year thanks to the American taxpayers $9 billion per month.
Truth of the matter is, as Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said, "The war is bankrupting this country." As a mother must inevitably do to her cub, we must let the Iraqi government stand on its own. This can only be done by reducing the American presence in the region, starting with the end of combat operations within Iraq and ending with the withdrawal of American troops. McCain has repeatedly expressed no desire to see a reduction of American troops anytime this year, decade or century.
A majority of Americans want an end to the Iraq war that is safe and honorable for those who have sacrificed so much in the name of our country. They have repeatedly rebuked the notion of another 100 years in Iraq, but McCain is so out of touch with the American voter that he has chosen to ignore their cries for change and has instead chosen the path that Bush has set.
The American people desire one thing in Iraq: change in the status quo. Something that McCain cannot and will not deliver if elected president.
Aaron Turner
President
College Democrats
turnerav@muohio.edu
The editorial printed in Tuesday's paper (April 29, "Yale student art project requires review, critique") was extremely troubling to read for several reasons, even more so since it was written by journalists, who should be beacons of free speech in a society.
The Student continuously points out that Aliza Shvarts' artwork meant to spark debate, but only created controversy through shock value; of course this allegation is only further made true by The Student's assertion of such. Instead of going into the artist's motives to any deep degree, it writes Shvarts off as an artist playing with the relationship between anatomy and art, which is true, but only at a very rudimentary level.
What Shvarts was attempting to do, as explained in a letter she wrote to The Yale Daily News, was to call into question the ways of knowing we leave unquestioned. The artist never knew if she had conceived, therefore she left the reader of the artwork to decide if the blood was menstruation or that of a fertilized ovum. This created a subversive ambiguity out of the concept of life in which the reader was the sole judge of what he or she was seeing. The artist took something as universally understood as life and made it ambiguous. But she made it ambiguous for a larger purpose.
Shvarts wanted to reclaim female organs "from the heteronormative structures that seek to naturalize it."
She asks the reader to consider if reproduction is the only purpose for ovaries and the uterus. There is a myth that some functions are "natural" and some aren't-this is one reason there is bigotry against the homosexual community. Shvarts says this construct "undermines that sense of capability, confining lifestyle choices to the bounds of normatively defined narratives."
She questions if all women are meant to act a certain way because they are "feminine" and if all men are to act "masculine." Or are these simply products of our culture. Body parts are capable of performing in many manners sexually, but only some of their capabilities are viewed as "natural" in our society.
She is instigating a real conversation about sexuality and nature that apparently too many are too immature to handle; they simply look at the means to this conversation and cannot get to the ends. Sadly, The Student also fell into this unfortunate trap.
The larger problem with The Student's editorial is its prescription for future college artists. The Student wrote, "Student artwork should aim to uphold a mutual respect between its participants and its universities to avert a potential and unnecessary crisis, and there should be procedures in place to ensure this is a possibility."
The reasoning for the previous statement is that the "controversial" artwork created a headache for Yale with possible implications on its reputation and admission numbers. Therefore The Student feels that artists should have enough respect for their universities to not create "shocking" pieces of art.
Although some may say this is a stretch, it seems very close to the artistic policy of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Under him, the only art allowed was that in which there was no controversy. Ambiguity was outlawed in art; all paintings and sculpture represented either the benevolent Stalin, or the hard-working proletariat. No larger themes or critiques were allowed. This is an extremely dangerous policy that decimates the intellectual community in which it is implemented.
One is also pressed to question the length to which this loyalty to the university goes. If the editors of The Miami Student were theoretically to discover that there had been embezzlement by the administration, would they not publish it for fear of Miami's reputation or admission numbers? Of course not, and we should not expect them to.
If student artists are expected to only portray themes in a way that will not shock anyone, then we have demoted them from being artists to being solely painters and sculptors, people who represent at a base level without artistry. Bear in mind the artwork that is plastered on residence hall room walls today (van Gogh, Monet and Dalí) was considered subversive and shocking during its time.
Asking artists to self-censor for the good of the university is unacceptable and undesirable for a setting in which the intelligentsia are required, that being a university which values a liberal education.
Bobby Pierce
piercere@muohio.edu
McCain's disconnected policies will continue war
A couple weeks ago the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, testified before Congress on the status of Iraq and President George W. Bush's surge strategy. All three presidential contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), had a chance to question the two officials but one failed to heed the concerns of the American people.
It is no secret that the long-time senator from Arizona has been a staunch supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq and in the hearings, McCain proved why he is the wrong person to lead this country. During the hearings, McCain voiced praise for the troop surge and the work of the American military but failed to address the concerns of the average American.
Everyone can agree that the troop surge has been a military success. Now the American people want to know: What's next?
Bush and McCain argued last summer that the surge was necessary to restore order so the Iraqi government could move forward politically. A year later, with the exception of the past few weeks, Iraq has seen a 70 percent decrease in daily violence, yet the Iraqi parliament has failed to come up with an oil sharing agreement, much of Baghdad is still without basic utilities, the bureaucracy is corrupt and bloated Iraqi security forces are still unable to function without U.S. support. All this being said, there is an upside: the Iraqi government will produce a budget surplus this year thanks to the American taxpayers $9 billion per month.
Truth of the matter is, as Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said, "The war is bankrupting this country." As a mother must inevitably do to her cub, we must let the Iraqi government stand on its own. This can only be done by reducing the American presence in the region, starting with the end of combat operations within Iraq and ending with the withdrawal of American troops. McCain has repeatedly expressed no desire to see a reduction of American troops anytime this year, decade or century.
A majority of Americans want an end to the Iraq war that is safe and honorable for those who have sacrificed so much in the name of our country. They have repeatedly rebuked the notion of another 100 years in Iraq, but McCain is so out of touch with the American voter that he has chosen to ignore their cries for change and has instead chosen the path that Bush has set.
The American people desire one thing in Iraq: change in the status quo. Something that McCain cannot and will not deliver if elected president.
Aaron Turner
President
College Democrats
turnerav@muohio.edu
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Karen
posted 5/02/08 @ 4:54 PM EST
"McCain has repeatedly expressed no desire to see a reduction of American troops anytime this year, decade or century."
It's sad to see that the College Dem president continues to manipulate McCain's words to portray him as a war-hungry madman. (Continued…)
Post a Comment