Who are our gatekeepers?


Who are our Gatekeepers?

It’s hard to imagine, in the world of the Internet, that anyone can stand in the way of any individual creating or enjoying a piece of art. However, there are many who behave as filters, facilitators or obstacles. Our textbook refers to those people in terms of being Gatekeepers and Mediators. The textbook also refers to Theorists, Critics, Reviewers, Dramaturgs, Agents and Marketing and PR people.

In our own time it’s hard to image how one group’s opinion can affect the art that we see. But, in truth these human filters have had great influence; historically and today. In more extreme times, the critics were not descriptive but rather prescriptive. Meaning, critics didn’t just write about what they saw and gave their opinions about it, they told the artists how you could create their art. In the time of Cardinal Richelieu, you could be arrested if you created art that veered from the Neoclassical Ideal.  And today it’s easy to see if a group is giving out money, such as the NEA (a government agency created to support the arts), and they do not approve of how you do art, you may not get the financial support to produce it.

Just a few years ago, a Yale art student caused an uprising for telling people that she continually inseminated herself and aborted the fetuses in order to use the blood in her senior project as part of an artistic statement about women’s bodies. Should she have been expelled for such an action as was suggested? (Read the attached articles below for a fuller understanding of this situation).

What do you think it says about that society that holds to strict rules of how art should be expressed?  Do you think the government should help support the arts?   Should there be some filters in place? What are the roles of the above mentioned gatekeepers? Whether you are addressing the content, form or how the theatre was financially supported, can you look at the theater that you have seen this semester and say what we value or who we are as a society?

Deborah Block

Articles on Yale Art Student


Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Who are our gatekeepers?

  1. Bridget Sutcliffe says:

    First of all, I would not really call what the Yale girl did “art”. I just do not really understand where she was coming from by telling everyone that what she ‘made up’ is art. I think it is very different to consider that art, but maybe that is just me. Many people think way out of the box and can be very creative. I do not think society holds strict rules about how art should be expressed because what the Yale student did was very over the top and I can see why she would get in trouble.
    I do think the government should help support the arts because art can be expensive and arts should receive funds.
    Gatekeepers are very important people. They mediate the art and business, play and audience, and many more. They do not work directly with the artists, but they help shape the audience. They do many financial advising and news editing. They do reports on how the art or performance was by writing them in magazines, newspapers, or television.
    Looking at the theatres this semester, I believe our society really does value theatres. Going to all these different plays and seeing how many people attend most of them is really amazing. Our society now has definitely grown to love the arts and theatre more and more. I think we really value all the creativity that comes out of the theatre.

  2. Georgia Papaloukas says:

    The Yale art situation is interesting but it comes to no surprise. I don’t think anyone really knows who is lying and who is telling the truth. As long as PR and press is involved it all comes down to maintaining an image, especially at a renowned college such as Yale. I do believe art should be as expressive as can be, yet it should not taken too far. Purposely inseminating and aborting is a bit too far, and I don’t even think many people would have been interested in her final project. I think art should be motivating and inspiring, so her project doesn’t fit within my boundaries of what art should and shouldn’t go past the Gatekeepers. The gatekeepers just may be good. Afterall, they are able to prevent extremely odd and disturbing pieces of “art” from happening. The government does not need to help support the arts but it would be nice. In theater, a society values connectivity. I think that the audience longs to relate with actors and situations within theater, this want represents the “me myself and I” mindset of our culture.

  3. Zahnay Blakney says:

    I think a society that holds to these rules is very black and white, what is considered good art shouldn’t be put into distinct categories, why cant a tragedy about common people be just as good as one that isn’t focused on the common person. The relationship between the people who maintained those definitions and the government is a positive one just for the simple fact that the government doesn’t want people who question what they do in the world. The government wants people who follow the rules without questioning just because it is a rule. The government doesn’t like people who think out the box. They don’t like people who think differently or challenge them. I also don’t think Yale should’ve reacted so negatively to the art students artistic statement about women’s bodies. She was expressing her creativity in an way that wasn’t practical so it was automatically judged as negative. People hate and put down what they don’t understand.

  4. Joney Mai says:

    I feel that our society as a whole always have the final say in how we should express ourselves, not only in art but in reality as well. Society that holds to strict rules of how art should be expressed confines themselves in a circle, where things can only be done in a certain way and anything out of the ordinary that defies their belief will be unacceptable. I think that the government should help support the arts, because art can be expressed in so many ways that there can’t be a limit to how art can be expressed. I believe that there shouldn’t be any filters in place because there is no limit to art and art is different for everyone. If society can’t handle how one expresses their art, then they should not see it.
    The roles of the gatekeepers mentioned above are the critics that analyze and review how one should express the art. These gatekeepers are the ones that govern what is being published or displayed to the society. They are the ones that make the decision to how art should be expressed.
    I feel as though from the theaters we have seen so far in this semester, we value and identify who we are as a society. For example, in silent night, the war exemplifies what every country has been doing for centuries. How we visualize our country and society can be seen in this play. We value what our country stands for, such as freedom, rights, and equality. But from the article about the Yale student, we can see that society is the gatekeepers that govern how she expresses her art.

  5. Paulette Palmer says:

    I think that a society that holds strict rules of how art should be expressed is not right. If art is to express your internal and external emotions,feelings,and thoughts then there should be no rules or limitations on what you want to say or how you want to express yourself. Rules and regulations in my opinion make art seem unrealistic because you can not really say everything you would like to say and in the way you want to say it. The government should help support the arts through school programs and arts through the communities. Art is not displayed enough in many school and communities due to low funding which makes children uninterested. The filters that should be put into place is art in all schools and the opportunity to take are classes as well.
    The roles of the above mentioned gatekeepers is mediators, theorists, critics, reviewers, dramaturgs, agents and marketing and PR people. From the 2 plays that we have seen this far this semester i would say that as a society we do value and care about art and theatre.Thousands of people come out to see performances of actors to engage in interaction of emotion and feeling though a visual perspective.

  6. Kursteen Lundy says:

    I feel as though art is an expression of one’s self. The people who think art should have strict rules are un-creative and controlling idiots. So what happens to all the people with tattoos? Do we burn them at the stake? I don’t think the government should help support the arts because all they’ll end up doing is controlling it somehow. Art requires no filters, but at the same time, I think that girl is an attention seeker and anyone who would actually do what she said would be a very, very disturbed person. Also, instead of being expelled, they should have given the person a psychiatric evaluation. Gatekeepers are meant to keep order and control in my opinion. What are “filters and obstacles” good for? The theater I’ve seen so far shows me that we are a very talented and diverse society. It also shows we value and support creativity.

  7. Siquette Williams says:

    Despite what we think, society holds much control on our lives what we do what we say ho we say it and etc. When it comes to expression society should have no say in anything. People use art to express themselves creatively, to get their individual message across. I do not believe a society should have any say on how people choose to display their personal creativity, this limits people and puts restrictions where they should not exist. Now there is always a line that shouldn’t be crossed and this is where I believe some minor filters should exist. If someones art is harmful or endangering the well being of people that obviously should not make it through the filter. But for an organization to decide that one persons artistic eye is better than another is absurd to me. Art is first in the eye of the creator and then second those who view it, whether it be a play or a painting.
    I have never been one to participate in the creation of the arts but I am always one to enjoy it. Without the arts the world would lack creativity and excitement. For this reason I believe strongly the government should help support the arts. There are hose who will probably say the government has much more important things to focus on but I dare that person to look up the arts and see just how many times the arts have literally saved lives in so many different ways.
    The gatekeepers that do exist have the role of what we discussed earlier, filtering. The critics and mediators are there to lure out the, according to society, weaker artist so that they will be out of the way for the better. It is very easy to see in this society that we value prestige. The opera was far more financially funded by outside sources than the small play assassin at the Interact theatre.

  8. Cassidy Spring says:

    I believe that their should be no strict rules on the arts, although there should be some boundaries on what is taking it to far. Like the Yale students senior project, which was disturbing and offensive to many. Having strict rules can limit peoples imaginations, and creativity, causing art to be held back from their greatest potential outcomes. I feel that the government should help support the arts in some way. I can see that a lot of time, effort, and money goes into productions and I believe monetary funds could be beneficial to the theaters and productions but, the government should not be able to control the arts so much that it ruins productions and creativity. I also believe that there should be no filters in place. Art can be described, viewed, and portrayed in many different ways depending on how you look at it, how you perceive it, and how the artists wants their piece to be viewed as. Therefore, there should be no filters, and artists should be able to express how they feel through their art with no limitations. I think that the Yale student was out of control and it was wrong of her, but people should know the boundaries on what is unacceptable and disrupting. The gatekeepers and mediators are there to link the audience to a performance or an artist to a production. The mentioned gatekeepers were theorists, critics, reviewers, dramaturgs, agents, marketers, and play readers. They shape expectations and responses from audiences, explain plays and justify decisions made, watch and write review on plays, they get publicity for the play, mediate artists with commercial theatre, and mediate between playwrights and producing entities. Based on the productions I have seen so far for this class, I really saw that theatre, and art are still a big part of this world. I thought before that the desire to see plays, and operas were slowly declining, but I could tell that many of the viewers and audience members were well engaged, and enjoyed going to see such productions. I feel that we all value art in some way. Some of us more than others, and many of us in different ways and different aspects, but in the end, art is what brings everyone together.

  9. Marquis Chamberlain says:

    I don’t think that the student should have been expelled because we live in a country where freedom of speech is a big thing. The forefathers came from a time where the government controlled things a little to tightly and every cultural change would meet some sort of death or exile. With that in mind, society today especially American society still feels the need to hold on to some sort of Christian moral basis. So of course people with this mind set believe life is sacred which leads to any notion of killing a child will be looked down upon. In reality though children are aborted everyday this art is a testament to what’s going on around us as people. Society holding on to rules of old art and plays is more of a flex of the European’s culture muscle than anything. It shows who’s culture has dominated and become mainstream, and is now “classic.” I think certain groups seek to wield power and influence through the medium of art and that’s why certain things are taboo, such as the Yale woman’s art. To me this tunnel vision of what art is and should be is similar to what children learn in Catholic high school about science. Some schools aren’t allowed to teach evolution because Catholic people by faith are creationists. It gives a narrow view on how things are and doesn’t incite possibilties which could lead to something offensive being created if it doesn’t follow the rules and regulations set down by the group. Gatekeeps are the people who tell you what is right and wrong, while they do whatever they want behind the scenes, always exerting some sort of power upon the little person while squeezing every ounce of creativity they have out and commoditizing it, espcially in capitlistic society.

  10. Maia barnes says:

    I think the idea of holding strict rules over art would extremely limit the amount of art produced. If the government could find a way to support every kind of art in an unbiased way then I would not oppose it, however, when it comes to government there is always more sense of control than support. While what the Yale student did was very odd and drew attention to possible internal issues she may have, nonetheless it was the way she chose to express herself and it is not illegal nor were there any specific rules against it. Although what she did is something I do not personally consider art and would never go see, it would be unfair for her to be expelled when there are no clear rules that she violated.
    Placing more strictness on art would include increasing the roles of the above mentioned “gatekeepers” such as critics, reviewers, dramaturgs, etc., because they are the ones who control either what the public sees or their opinions on what they see.
    I think who we are as a society can be shown through the shows we have seen so far. If those funding a show believe that the piece is considered prestigious or above others then they will get more money. For example, Silent Night seemed much better funded than Assassin possibly because operas are seen in more of an “elite” way that a two actor play.

  11. Katie Lachenmayer says:

    I think there shouldn’t be strict rules on art and what can be classified as art. Artist should be able to express themselves, push the boundaries, and create whatever they wish. In my opinion I think the Yale artist did go too far with her project, especially lying about what she did. I have never heard of anyone going that far to get there point across. I think that the government should help support the arts although they should not control it. They should fund different types of arts so they become cheaper for the public to experience. I don’t think that there should be filters on art because it will limit creativity and freedoms of the people. But I believe that there are going to filters on certain things no matter what because of the way society is set up. Gatekeepers and mediators play in an important role in connecting the public to the arts. I think that anyone could be considered a gatekeeper or mediator because anyone can shape people’s opinions, expectations, and reaction.

  12. Laura Leriche says:

    Let us first consider the question, “What is art?” What can be portrayed as art and why would someone go to such an extent of ruining her reputation in order to prove a point concerning the art world. I do think this lady should be expelled from Yale and I do think she needs serious help. And there isn’t enough action against what she did. She claims she didn’t get pregnant and there is alleged proof of that, but the idea of that even being considered art comes from a sick, perverse place.
    So, what is the standard for acceptable art in today’s society or for any individual person? Does america even have a standard?
    As we supposedly advance in society, we seem to accept anything and there is a decrease in morality. Although abortion is accepted by the majority of americans, it doesn’t make it right. And whats even more relevant in this matter is that its apparently okay for a yale student to artificially inseminate herself, induce abortion, and record it as a project for the sake of art and discussion. If that isn’t murder or considered sick and perverse, I don’t know what is.
    THe obvious role of the mentioned gatekeepers is to regulate and control what is expressed or how things are expressed, artfully. They are needed because humans don’t want to filter themselves, especially as artists. Artists don’t want to control or censor their work, which is understandable. But when you push the limits too hard, you are bound to lose your audience. And when you lose your audience you lose your art because without an audience you art is silent. Tasteful art speaks volumes, even if it may be considered offensive to some, the majority might stick around to “get” what you’re trying to say!!
    It just seems like a fail on her part because she lost her audience by being distasteful. I’m sure she could have proven her point in a different way.

  13. Caroline Mancuso says:

    I feel the art student from Yale University should have never been expelled from college for her art piece. I think people today blow situations way out of proportion and do not think of exactly the meaning behind what the person was thinking. Obviously this art piece sounded disturbing in all aspects but she was taking it to far by being so descriptive in the way she got the blood for her sculpture from her miscarriages. I think if this woman left out the part where she artificially inseminated herself and took herbal drugs that caused her cramping and bleeding and did not tell anyone about where the blood was from she probably would not have received such a harsh punishment. She was expressing her art which everyone is allowed to do but just in to much of a descriptive inappropriate way. Our society can not take art or anything the way they used to back 100 years ago. I would also like to say how I think the government should not have to support the arts. The arts just like sports have sponsors, agents and marketing, critics, and an owner somewhat like a producer. The government does not support sports but rather will recognize teams or players for their achievements. Our nation is already in a financial crisis the way it is, having to support all different types of art would not help our financial situation our country is in today. Rather recognizing Art just like the government might recognize sports would do it justice. Looking at how big Philadelphia is on Art with the Philadelphia Art Museum, the Art Institute on South Broad Street, and all the different theaters and plays going on all over he city, really makes me believe that Art is still alive and ongoing. The amounts of people that are still interested to take time out of their busy work week to come see Art amazes me! I never really had an understanding of really how popular Art was to many people before this class. I do not see a falling out with Art anytime soon and that no matter how big our society is on technology, watching everything on our phones and laptops, I still see theaters attracting Gatekeepers. The roles of Gatekeepers will help to keep Art alive and popular in our near future.

  14. Megan McCreadie says:

    I personally do not believe that Aliza Shvarts should have been expelled. She made it very clear in her statements that she was not ever actually pregnant, and that the whole project was meant to spark conversation and draw attention to the function of a woman’s body. Art is meant for freedom of expression, and I do not believe that there should be lines drawn if no one is getting intentionally hurt by the process. If Shvarts had actually been pregnant, there would have been grounds for people to protest her project and what she was trying to accompish. Although the piece was disturbing in nature, she warned everyone of that, stating exactly what she was planning to show when it was finalized.
    I think the government should recognize and support the arts. However, the government cannot be too invovled in the arts. There are so many ehtical and political things that would be argued about endlessly if the government was to be extremely invovled. For example, there are people who are pro-choice and people who are pro-life. Those who are pro-life were extremely disgusted by Shvarts’s project. It was this politcal view that caused such an angry uprise. Abortion is something that is not taken lightly by the public.
    Every form of art is going to have critics. Whether it be someone simulating abortions, or a form of theatre, people are always going to have something to say. These people are gatekeepers; critics and mediators of all forms of art. These people play an important role in connecting the art to the public, and vise versa.

  15. Rachel Sload says:

    When discussing art, I would not necessarily say it would be okay to put a limit on it. Artists should not be confined to what society deems as appropriate or acceptable; they should have free reign to do as they please. HOWEVER, in this specific instance, I would say it is a different scenario. What the student at Yale did was not art; it pushed too far beyond the boundaries of whats moral and ethical and even legal. If I were to go to an art museum, I would have the expectations to see things that are pleasant to look at considering it a public place where people go to enjoy art. I do not know anyone in their right mind who would go to a museum, see a painting sculpted of blood from apparent self-induced abortions and think to themselves, “huh, what a nice piece of art.” By no means am I saying that art has to be accepted by the majority in order to be considered art, it’s just the thought of seeing something like that would disturb me and every other level headed person that I know. I believe that art is a very relative term and changes from person to person, and I’m not saying that to the Yale student this wasn’t art, because I am in no position to say that, but I do believe it should be censored from the public eye because that is not something that most people would want to see…and that is where gatekeepers come in! These gatekeepers should have not allowed it to be placed on display in order to avoid unnecessary controversy.
    This situation of what is considered art and what is acceptable regarding the government, can be compared to religion. Religion is also a very relative term and can mean a multitude of things to different people. People have the right to practice whatever religion they believe in freely and preach and do whatever else it is that religious people do, with regard to what is ethical and morally correct. It’s cool to practice what you believe in, as long as no one else is being harmed or disturbed from it.

  16. Lisa Stark says:

    I don’t think that art should be held to specific standards or formatted in a certain way. I think that part of what makes art art is that it doesn’t adhere to what is thought to be normal. Anything that is art is often unique an out of the ordinary.
    The student from Yale shouldn’t have lied and said she had had the abortions when she hadn’t. I think the fact that she lied about her abortions shows that she was trying to shock her audience rather than appreciate her art. Art is at least important to me because of its content rather than the controversy surrounding it.
    Art becomes more interesting and unique when it isn’t formatted traditionally. Even if the public is disgusted by it, I think it should still be regarded as art. I personally would take offense if she had actually had the abortions to make the art, but I would still refer to the piece as art. However, I would respect her a lot more had she been honest with the public rather than lying for shock value. I think that it has seriously taken away from any point she was trying to make.
    I don’t think that the government should fund or have any sort of influence on art. When the government starts to fund art, they’ll in turn become the judge of what is and what isn’t art.

  17. Rebecca Shoup says:

    I do not believe that there should be any time of strict rules placed upon the arts. However, there should be a certain set of boundaries that should not be overstepped. In the case of the Yale student, this form of art was taken to a new extreme and definitely crossed over both moral and ethical boundaries offending a great number of people. Due to her extreme actions and supposedly “made up” story about purposely inseminating herself and then aborting the fetus, I can see why should be get into all sorts of trouble.

    I do not believe that the government should support the arts because the arts would then be placed under governmental control. The government would then have great influence over the arts and be capable of creating strict limitations that the arts would have to follow.

    The gatekeepers within the arts exist to act as a filter in many ways. They filter out the so-called weaker artists so that there will be more room for the stronger artists. They also review how one should express and perceive art and analyze how art is to be displayed in society. Ultimately the gatekeepers link the audience to the performance and the artists to the production.

    Before entering this class I did not realize the vast majority of our society that placed such a high value upon the theatre. By going to these plays it has become very clear to me that theatre is valued by the vast majority of our society and is of great value to many people. I have always believed that art was of great value to society but never realized how much of that value belongs to the theatre.

  18. Caroline Slusarczyk says:

    Art is all about an individual’s personal expression, and it usually says something about what they believe to be true or untrue. Each artist’s perspective is shaped by society, whether it be in favor of what society deems “okay” or not in favor. Someone, for example, could make art about a controversial topic and cause an uproar, but that almost seems to be part of what makes art art. Art is made for others to see and criticize, whether they like it or not. It is made to induce conversation and opinions about different things in the world, generally in an abstract way. The government, in my opinion, should never have control over art. Art is meant to be mentally stimulating to people, whether they agree with it or not. If the government was to control it, it would become limited and uncreative and would only be what society deems “appropriate” for the public.
    In the case of the Yale student, I believe she got the exact reaction from people that she wanted. Her point was to create an artistic view of the female body, but she went to questionable lengths to get a reaction. She has the right to make an artistic statement, even if in most people’s eyes it is wrong and disturbing. Even though I’m not in favor of what she claimed to have done, art is meant to move people and create lasting impressions on them, which is exactly what she did.

  19. Ajila Koshy says:

    I think society holds strict rules on how an art should be expressed because their perception of art is generalized with the ethics of it, they don’t view art as something which should be achieved by crossing a certain limit. The student at the Yale University definitely wanted to portray her art in such a way which would catch everyones attention. For us it might be something which crossed limit, but I think for her, art is something which means a lot so other things does not matter to her and she wanted to do her best by not even thinking about what the society would think. Government should surely help support the art because art is something which somewhat plays role in everyones life. Art is everywhere and ignoring something which is a big part of us can only lead to the end of it. And like I mentioned before, a person who is very much dedicated to art, would not think much about the ethics of it, so there has to be filters to figure out which one is good and which one is bad. Just because a person wants to do their best to make an art doesn’t mean he/she should cross the limit to shock the society in a negative way. And we the people who filter out these things by forming opinions and acting against it are called the gatekeepers. Even though we stand in the way of an artist and his art, we try to be fair with the society as a whole. After all, when a person goes to enjoy the art, in theater or anywhere else, he/she wants it to be a memorable thing in a good way. And when they go to a theater to watch a show, we always look for a part which should interest us and make us happy at the end of the day.

  20. Bianca D'Amato says:

    I do not think Aliza Shvarts should have been expelled but I also do not think what she did was okay. The fact that she went to this extreme, to me, is definitely above and beyond. Although she making a statement about her artwork and art in general there are other ways she could have gone about this. I know that art can be expressed in many ways and that artists feel the need to express themselves in unique ways but they should still keep in mind that going to extremes such as lying and/or harming the lives of others (abortion). Although she was never actually pregnant nor had any abortions the fact that she decided to tell this lie to people just really throws me off. This is where rules for art come into play although they are not always followed and people will always try to work their way around them. I do feel that the government should support art because art is part of America’s culture. I think that if there are filters for artists it really won’t make a difference because artists don’t mind being different or breaking the rules. The gatekeepers mentioned above are mediators, theorists, critics, reviewers, dramaturgs, agents and marketing and PR people. The roles of gatekeeper’s include managing how art is available to society. Lastly, the way society views theater, or art in general, is that it is completely entertaining especially since there are so many different forms of art and ways for people to express themselves.

  21. Nikki James says:

    Art doesn’t have a black and white line. There is a lot of grey area in what is right and wrong. Specifically to the Yale incident, her idea of Art is in grey area. Society is split into two views. Some can say that she was out of line, others can really understand her sculpture and maybe even relate to it. Art is a representation of something. It expresses the thoughts of the creator. If the “gatekeepers” can say no to the woman’s representation of her fake “Experience” of an abortion, whats to say they won’t say no to art relating to rape, murder and other taboo ideas. I personally think Art is unstoppable with the resources like the Internet today. People can speak their minds however they want to. I also think what this woman pretended to do was unethical, but i understand the artwork.
    I can compare this to today’s Democratic and Republican views on abortion too. Society is split into two. Democrats believe in abortion, Republican’s believe it is wrong. There is not a unanimous vote on what is right and what is wrong. It is allowed and it does happen.

  22. Sean O'Connell says:

    In the case of the Yale student I do not think it is art. The making of art surrounding the idea of killing a living thing just to show off as “art” should never be considered art. Although she shouldn’t have However I do believe that the government should support the arts. Ignoring the few bad examples of art, such as the Yale student, art is a key part in our society and should be supported because without it we lose a way of expressing ourselves. A society that sticks to those definitions is very general. With only two categories to place art into it is very hard to express yourself the correct way. It puts restraints that anger the artist and also puts filters on the art. Some audiences preferred watching royalty and gods rather than an ordinary citizen.
    Their shouldn’t be any filters on art however if it is art funded by the government then it should be within reason which the situation with the Yale student crosses the line and should be filtered out as a candidate for government funding. She can make her art and display it however it should not be funded by the government or any other group. The Gatekeepers slightly filter by having the knowledge of what their audience wants and choosing which art to put on public display. Although it does filter out many smaller or weaker artist that can have potential it provides the public with something that is enjoyable. For example the Yale student probably would have gone unnoticed due to the gatekeeper’s idea of popular art and would not have displayed it, however society highlights the major outliers in our world and she happened to be one of them.
    I believe that you can look at the theater as a good indicator as to what we value and who we are as a society. The experience of going to the opera and people dressed up paying a lot of money to see the play shows that art is a huge part in our society despite what some people believe. Even the play at the interact theater was sold out and even though it was a lot cheaper than the opera it still shows that people use their resources for the arts. The opera also can show us a s who we are because the story was a mostly anti-war theme since it was about a truce during a war. It may point towards a more anti-war society since that is what the gatekeepers saw as popular and went with it. Assassin shows the way we view sports and how our views have changed. Back before we knew the full extent of concussions the brutal hits that defenseman gave were not as scrutinized as they are now due to the fact that we know the consequences of those hits. All in all art for the most part shouldn’t have filters and the gatekeepers help us pick out the art that we enjoy the most. Art is also an important part in our society.

  23. Taylor Denning says:

    I think when a society makes rules about art, that it does not let the artist express themselves truly. I do think the government should support the arts, but I do not agree with there being rules about art. Art is very broadly defined as “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation” in the Merriam Websters dictionary for a reason. Art is not meant to be structured a certain way, it is supposed to be an individual meaning to the artist. I only disagree with this when articles like the Yale student come out. I do not think what she did was art, that was just wrong. However, it may have been considered art to her, just not the rest of the world. The role of the gatekeepers mentioned above are to be someone who comes between the art and the idea of the art. For example, the dramaturg researches the time of the play and illuminates the art. The reviewer gives their opinion on the play in context while the critic gives an academic approach to giving their review. I think society values art more than people give them credit. The theater we have seen so far, has always had a respectable crowed audience; showing me that society values the theater. Society values the time and effort put into shows and the story that is played. I always knew that society valued theater, but I am starting to realize just how much society values it, which is a great deal.

  24. Gregory Masiello says:

    Art has been supported for hundreds of years, by society and the government. Most people enjoy art in their own way, as well as express themselves in their own way. However, one could say there are rules that decide how and what is expressed through art, although these aren’t very strict rules. One could also say these rules act as gate keepers, but these rules are put in place for certain reasons. Rules deciding if certain art is appropriate serve public interest and that is why Shvartz ‘s art work could be debated. I believe the work wasn’t appropriate, and acts toward more of a political view, rather than an artistic one. Although everyone has a right to express themselves how they want, especially through art, there are certain things people don’t do out of basic norms. Shvart’s art goes against these norms, and tries to raise a protest on a political debate, rather than express herself through a more meaningful way.

  25. Megan Rybak says:

    In my opinion, art is meant to push the envelope and stir up potential controversy; however I do acknowledge that even though it is legal for Aliza to express herself artistically, that does not necessarily make it morally tasteful. I have no doubt that Aliza is an intellectually talented artist with passionate ideas and abstract views on the world, but being the innovative person she is, could she not find a better, less offensive, or a less physically harmful way of communicating her message? I think she could have; however, I can respect how she, as the artist, may think this vulgar way was maybe the best way or the only way to get her point across. Do I particularly agree with it being the only way? No way… but I always try to step back and see my views in perspective.
    To me, this is not an issue of pro life or pro choice, and it is not even so much an issue of art, but a potential issue of emotional imbalance. I feel as though truth is supposed to be communicated through art, and the fact that Aliza lied about her artwork’s conception makes it less creditable for me. Lieing about harming yourself for a work of art is more than a cry for recognition, but a cry for help as well. With that being said, I do think that the government should act as filter on only art that appears to cause a threat to either the artist or the viewer. Additionally, although I would like the government to help fund the arts as they are vital to our cognitive development, help us express ourselves, and even speak to us in ways that no one else can, I do fear that giving the government too much control would contradict the freedom and flowing creative nature that the arts initially stand for. Our gatekeepers, critics, reviewers, etc. are significant because they help connect us to the art we are viewing and to our fellow audience members; however, they can simultaneously color our perspectives in a negative light and sometimes may limit our abilities to control our own artwork and formulate our own impressions.

  26. Zhane Holman says:

    I think that when it comes to art, to a certain extent, we DO need gatekeepers. Art is such a personal form of expression and not everyone feels the same way. With that being said, some people’s definition of art goes way beyond the “normal” definition that has been taught to us for years, which isn’t necessarily bad, but needs to be introduced slowly into our society. The Yale “art” situation is a perfect example of how that was an “art” form that definitely was not ready to be introduced into society especially since there are already so many zealous anti-abortion groups. Society does in fact hold strict rules about art but it’s not because we’re trying to be dictators, it’s because chaos ensues; the prime example being the Yale situation. Everyone can’t just go around doing what they want because they feel it’s “right” to them. I think the government can only support the arts to an extent because art is such a broad topic its hard to determine what exactly they are supporting. As for us as a society I do believe we value arts. The plays and operas we have attended have proved that. However, we only value art forms that we believe are “right” or “justifiable” to us because it’s what we’re comfortable with.

  27. Alicia Wennberg says:

    Art is personal – people find beauty in so many different things which means that there is no right or wrong when it comes to art. There is of course some art pieces some people tend to like more than others. Aliza Shvarts’, a Yale student, art piece was not given a standing ovation. It was a little on the edge considering the fact that she was pretending that her whole art piece was real – which is was not. Helaine Klasky, a university spokesman, said “the entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body,”. I agree with Klasky’s statement and I think that the university should consider darkness and the tragedies of life – not only the “positive aspects”. I would assume that Klasky’s intention with the art was to draw attention to the tragedies that can happen to a woman’s body – not just the miracles by breaking the social norms. She certainly came through with it, but the gatekeepers, which was the media in this case, did not have the same viewpoint as Klasky and Shvarts. They are, on the other hand, important for the society so people can reflect and discuss if Shvarts took her art piece too far even though it was all fake. The gatekeepers also gave room for the ‘audience’ – which would be the society – to express whether they think Shvarts’ art piece was socially accepted or not. The majority of the society did not like her art piece, and it ended with that Shvarts got expelled. I personally disagree with that because of diversity of art. It is personal and there is no right answer for what one can and cannot appreciate as beauty.

  28. Asante Lewis says:

    1)The art incident at Yale University speaks volumes about society and their strict rules about its mediums of expressing art. Society creates these strict rules to restrict the populous to a broad and yet narrow way of thinking of art. Society has become too cautious and predictable.There is a plethora of art out there, but only a few of the many are brought to light.”The socially acceptable ones” are the ones that are less controversial or of minimal risk are advertised more than the risque ones. The rules and restriction, in this way reduce risk but also hinder the true advancement of art. Art is about breaking boundaries and taking risks, this is how new mediums are created. Art is the expression of human creativity and wonder. Since 21st century , society has had a greater involvement in advertising what is deemed “good art”, so in the incident with Yale University there would naturally be a vehement uproar due to the populous viewing this medium of art as unethical,and risque . But truly it is unpredictable, and the society tried to filter it out. 2) The government should support the arts to allow the people, as a whole, to get a better understanding of it (so they are less critical). This would allow people to create more art that breaks the boundaries of the works made in past generations. Thus, furthering the advancement art in all mediums.3) There should be filters because there is always that place where anyone can go too far. Society needs to give some slack to their restrictions.4) Gatekeepers job is to control the flow of information to people, such as the New York Times.5) From the plays I’ve seen so far, i gather that our society would rather focus on issues that are relevant but not too controversial. If the plays were too controversial then there may be less ticket sales and would not have it run. In regards to plays, it is really what makes money; if it sells and does not strike an uproar, then its golden.

  29. Joseph A Palazzola says:

    I don’t believe that art should be subject to strict rules. Although I feel this case is a little extreme. She has the right to do whatever she wants to her body,but hurting others of the sake of art, in this case abortion, is wrong. I’m not sure why she would lie about such a terrible. I feel that the government should support arts because it is a way for people to express themselves and get a message out, but I do feel there should be a small filter on it. I feel it is ok for art to be controversial because it provokes thought and sometimes can open your eyes to new ideas, but I feel if the art that is spoke about is made by hurting oneself or another person it is wrong and should be stopped. I feel that the gatekeepers are the filters. They help strong artists to get there expressions out and help society to think.

  30. Krista DiTomo says:

    Starting with the case of the Yale student, I myself am a Catholic so my answer may be a little bias. I do not believe in any way is that art, the fact that this girl can even consider taking the life of a child would be art is in my belief, sick and disturbing. I do not believe that Government should fund that because of the message that it is spreading which is that abortion is an art. Whether that is what she planned to do it or not it is how pregnant teenage girls are going to take. She put a more lax view on a very serious situation. Even though I do not believe this is art I still agree with this idea of the gatekeeper, I believe critics and reviewers are the arts gatekeeper. When going to see a movie you are going to go online and see what the reviews and critiques are for the movie and those will ultimately affect your decision as to whether or not you are going to go that movie. Same goes for plays when you hear that it was an awful play you are going to question or not you want to see it. I do not agree with that, whether you like it or not is completely up to you. No body should be able to have the power to say a piece of art is “bad”.

  31. Leroy Mapp says:

    In the event with the Yale art student, I personally believe that her desire to construct a senior project that possseses unusual components like that is extremely odd. In my personal opinion, I would have not possess a optimistic view on her senior project because of the vulgarity and negative emotions that it will erupt due to her project. I am a strong believer of freedom of expression and the desire to express sensitive topics. However, sometimes individuals will over do things and utilize things that abuse individuals’ freedom of expression in a sense. Moreover, I do not believe that the art student should have been expelled from the school because of the project. Eventhough the project caused much uproar and scrutiny, I would have still allowed the child their education at that university because they could simply not display the project to settle the uproar and have her project viewed privately. I believe that the Yale university officials did not cope with that situation correctly by expelling her. Furthermore, I do not belive that the government should fund certain types of art form because art is free and represents the freedom of expression. So, one should be able to express how they feel without the government stating that it is acceptable for funding. What should be the deciding factor is the people and the art pieces fame will be determined on how individuals view it. Lastly, I beileve that the critics and reviewers are the arts gatekeeper because their acceptance of a certain art peice brings notoriety of it.

  32. Payal Patel says:

    Art is a free form of expressing one’s feelings and behaviors. Society performs art in many ways that they are not conscious of. However, they express themselves and let others know how they’re feeling. In this scenario, the Yale student performed art in a way that was not ethical. What she did is her own perception of art. I think she went beyond it causing so much public attention, which was unnecessary. Society really doesn’t have any boundaries for art because most of what society portrays as art isn’t as extreme as the “art” discussed in the article. Government should support the arts because it brings out the creativeness in everyone. Funds towards art should definitely be made because no one wants to see the same art over and over again. Filters should be in place because it allows people to know their limit. Gatekeepers, as mentioned, are people who let society know of certain information. They give their view point. From looking at the theater, people do value the arts. It is the creativity and joy that they enjoy the most. The plays have a full audience that is satisfied with the art. Art has to be appealing to the audience otherwise it doesn’t have significant meaning. Society will make quick judgements on what they like and don’t like so to win an audience, the art has to be pleasing.

  33. Ashley Palmer says:

    When it comes down to art I personally don’t feel as though art should be subjected to any rules, guidelines, or restriction. However when referring to the Yale student and her art project I do feel as though that some red flags should have been thrown in. If filters need to be placed on art, I think that they should be placed when the health and or life of a person is in jeopardy. Self expression, provoking thoughts, dancing on the edge of controversy are all things that art should entail but never should someone’s life be held in the balance for the sake of art. Although I do give kudos to the student for being passionate about her work and willing to step outside the box for it, I do believe that her instructors should have steered her in a different direction but still allowing her to stay true to her vision just in a different medium.
    As far as government supporting the arts I do think that they should be supported to an extent. Now some people may question my reasoning for the not allowing the government to give a full ride to art programs and other art affiliations but I do believe art has a story to tell. I think that some of the greatest forms of art come from pain and despair. The struggle of art is what gives it meaning, what makes people question it. Reflecting on why the artist chose to use particular mediums, or what were they experiencing when they were creating their vision. Art has feeling and meaning and sometimes those emotions can get muffled when it’s not created in an atmosphere that channels those emotions. Also since art is such a controversial topic I think the government could only fund so much because what one person may consider a masterpiece another person could regard as just some artists palate of emotions.
    As for gate keepers in our society I think that they should be held to standards that support artist’s health both physically and emotionally and only come down on those who pose a threat to themselves and others. As viewers of art I think there should be no restrictions because we have the options of not viewing it or agreeing with it. Something that is similar to the controversy that surrounded the Yale’s student is the referencing the human body in art, especially the nude body. From Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography to modern classics and renditions of the human body like body painting and public displays of nudity, today’s society still seems to shy away from the nude body. I personally don’t understand why everyone gets so frantic when skin is showing but then again, it’s the gate keepers that help instill those feelings and regulate what we can and cannot see.

  34. Bria Coaxum says:

    When I first read that a person would abort a fetus in the name of art I was thoroughly disgusted. Although I’m pro-choice, the thought of a person aborting a living entity was just crazy to me. As I read on however, I realized that Aliza Shvarts, the person in question, only pretended to commit such an act. That completely changed things for me. From that point, I understood why she created art that created such a controversy – to challenge societal norms and standards. While some may not consider what she did art, I do. Art is not only for visual pleasure or decorative purposes – it is also used for the expression and communication of emotions, values, and ideals. Through her art piece, Shvarts showed how close minded society can be to certain things. She also challenged the gatekeepers of society. Even though there are people who are able to withold information and movements, they were unable to stop hers.

  35. Evan Herron says:

    I agree that this is shock without substance. I don’t consider this art as much as a political message. I don’t agree that this piece is a creative fiction. The artist created disturbing images to “create conversation about the ambiguity surrounding form and cunction of a woman’s body.” I don’t think she accomplishes this. My first thought was not about that but about the health risks of going through with what she was claiming. I was concerned about her health both mental and physical I think this project was over the top but I think that without crossing the boundaries we wouldn’t know what mass appeal is.

    I think that Government should fund the arts. I am conflicted those because my view is that what the government funds, it should also regulate. I am nervous to allow regulations near art to ensure integrity.

  36. Ashley Marie Rapp says:

    For starters, The article on the Yale University Art student was very shocking to read about because in my mind that is no way a form of art. I think that it is crazy that something like that was government funded and the whole project as a whole is mind boggling and disturbing. I am also very shocked that this “Art” project was aloud to go along and be presented at such a prestigious school or leave alone any school. What that girl put her body through to show her idea of art is something that i cannot wrap my head around. I do not believe in this as being an idea of art but i do agree with the arts gatekeepers article. I do not think that any one should say that a piece of art is “bad”. Every person is different from the person next to them and i think that everyone has the right to their own opinions. So even though i don’t agree with the Yale students art project i don’t think i have the right to say it was “bad”.

  37. Walter Egner says:

    I feel art is a vast concept that has limited requirements and rules. Art is anything that expresses the human creativity and imagination. Such a broad definition would not allow many restrictions and it should not allow many restrictions because art gives people a way to express themselves whether it be controversial and agreeable. However, some people abuse art and its lack of limitations such as the Yale student. The Yale student crossed the line and presented, to me, the exact opposite of art. She expressed death. Yes death can be a form of art, however, not in the context she used. To me, creation is art and death marks the end of creation. Therefore, death brings art to an end. Yes I am a Catholic and might be slightly biased towards abortions, but to me aborting a child is equivalent to murder. Taking the life of an underdeveloped but yet much alive individual is to me very saddening. But then to use its remains to create art is just horrible. The student should be expelled no questions asked

  38. Danielle Altomonte says:

    At first I did not understand how the Yale student believed that telling a lie is a form of art, then I thought who am I to judge what someone else considers art? I do not think anyone has the right to put down others artistic beliefs. Her art project caused people to pay attention which I believe is a success. I do not think she should have been expelled. She was a young women who was bold enough to tackle a very controversial topic in society. I think society is attempting to get rid of individualism, this issue shows if a person attempts to step out of the box they are tossed to the side and in this case expelled. The people have to tip toe around the government and follow their opinions as guidelines. Why is everything the government or society believes has to be understood by all persons? For example, why is it the government who decides on who should marry who? Why do people have to follow that a man has to marry a women just because this is what society is used too and wants? I think Yale is wrong for expelling a brave student who thought out of the box just like i believe the government is wrong for not allowing two men or two women who love each other to not get married in certain states.

  39. Theo Kreider Umble says:

    An art can be made out of absolutely anything. It is a constraint on the mind to consider whether or not “something is art”. It is also a constraint to labor over issues such as “what determines good art”. Infinitely more productive and positive is a viewpoint that respects all for simply being; that is, being what it is. Thereafter, you can do whatever you wish. An analogy is to consider the way we interact with food. No one sits around for hours contemplating “what is food? It comes in so many forms…and somehow, not everyone loves all food, so how do we determine what makes good food?” Such an enquiry is ridiculous. Likewise it is foolish to search for an answer to seemingly deep, intense questions concerning the metaphysics of art. Things become incredibly easier and clearer when one adopts a mentality that remains calm and patient, devoid of hostile analysis that would otherwise prevent him/her from enjoying any art.
    That said, there do exist ever-pertinent issues that transcend our fleeting concerns for “defining” etc. For example, it is simply understood that life is valuable and that to kill fellow beings is regressive. So, should we suppose that a given work of an artist entails the murder of children, most people would become appalled, disgusted, and perhaps even sad that such an event took place. Now, note that the immediate impact comes from the murder of children; the phrase “a given work of an artist entails” is merely informative. Had the statement read: “terrorist murders children”, the greatest impact again is born from the presence of the words “murders children.” Now of course, the given contexts affect the way we perceive the statements and also serve as the catalyst for reflective thought, though the real meat of the statements is idea of murdered children. Observers care not about who killed the children (at least not initially); they care about “murdered children.” Accordingly, van Gogh’s Sunflowers comprises no more and no less beauty that the sunflowers we pass in nature.
    The Yale student (assuming she did not lie) caused no actual damage. She hurt no one. She simply produced a work that centers on a given topic, and said topic happens to be one that takes form in a way that is not comfortably received by the masses. In my opinion, the television and the movies and the radio are breeding grounds for disgusting, unnecessary, demoralizing thought/belief. As it turns out, the masses enjoy regular easy access to such venues. It thus makes such sense to become enraged by a girl’s own personal endeavor that would have gone under the radar were it not for desperate journalists.
    The real beauty here lies in the way so much flare has been sparked in response to Shvarts’ doings. For all we know, this is the real project: an observation of how short-fused and intolerant society really is.
    I think that any art endeavor is completely viable so long as basic human nature/instinct remains intact. Thus, so long as killing and vandalism (etc.) stay out of it, no problems should ensue. Creators of art should simply be aware of the fact that there is a continuum, extending infinitely in opposite directions, which represents how subtly vs. how bluntly a message is conveyed. Depending on the point in time that’s of consideration, it may be wisest to lean towards one side or the other. Also, from the observer’s point of view, it is always wisest to respect the fact that seeing a work for what it is, as it is, will allow for a most fulfilling, productive experience. You learn a lot more by listening than by speaking.

  40. Bridget Parkes says:

    I found this article to be very interesting, When first reading the beginning of the abortion art article, I was shocked that someone would think it was necessary to create art. I understand there is a line between a woman’s body and art and it is open to be crossed, but I felt her concept of using abortion was a little harsh. This is a topic that people truely believe is a murderous action and to make the death of a child (in some people’s perspective) seemed rude to me. Although I think artist are able to make art through their own eyes and should be able to express themselves, I feel that a lie is not a way of doing so. Anyone can tell a lie to get a rise out of people and that to me is not art, art makes you feel something and I felt this student’s abortion project made people sick, I did not see how one could appreciate her train of thought. Therefore, I completely agree that this project was “shock without substance.” This project caused a rise, and did not teach a lesson or prove a point.

  41. Nicole Keating says:

    For art to be considered art, I think that we can’t put strict rules or filters on it, but people need to have common sense to know when what they do goes too far. I’m all for expressing yourself through art, but I really wouldn’t call what the girl from Yale did, expressing herself; honestly I don’t really know what I would call it. I think that if the government could be involved in the arts without destroying and controlling it, they could really be helpful in funding it or getting more people interested in it. The roles of the gatekeepers are very important but also very powerful in the theatre world. They pretty much control who goes to see the shows, their opinions on it, and how everyone else views the play as well. For instance, a critic can make or break a show with their review. If they say the play is awful, most likely not many more people will go to see it, but if they say how great it is for all ages and all types of people the play will be much more successful. As for the plays that we have seen so far, I think that as a society we don’t care that much about theatre. I know that some people really enjoy it, but it really is a small margin of us. Most people do not go to the show on a Friday night, but I think more people should. The arts are a good way for society to express themselves, whether it be creating, or just watching.

  42. Shane P George says:

    I believe art is how one expresses themselves to others. Our world consists of people who all think and feel differently, so we end up with different forms and types of art. When I read the article about the Yale art student it really surprised me how far the student went to express herself. Throughout reading the article I was just very shocked that someone would hurt them self and commit to an abortion just to create a form of artwork. Yes everyone is different and everyone has their own way of creating art but I am completely against what this student did. I agree with the others in this class, people need to have common sense and know their boundaries. Gatekeepers have a powerful role because through them shows can succeed or fail. They pretty much control how people feel towards a certain show through their criticism. They can pretty much make a show sound amazing and have many people attend it or they can tell the world how bad a show is and have no one show up.

  43. Antonia Curry says:

    To be honest, I don’t know much about art. I’m not very deep, I’m not very thoughtful, I’m more of a surface kind of person. I do, however, have an open mind, and can accept and respect the ideas and opinions of others. The Yale student was indeed very bold to create a project of such harsh moral and ethical conflict. I personally think the idea of her piece is brilliant. Lying about inseminating herself and self-inducing her own abortions was just part of her art piece, and should give people relief about the situation instead of causing an uproar. If the student did, in fact, inseminate herself and induce abortions, I wouldn’t appreciate her idea or her art at all. I am not big into politics, I am not big into religion, I believe abortion is acceptable when it is truly necessary. A woman who was impregnated from rape or force of an abusive male in her life getting an abortion is different than a woman aborting multiple babies for a senior art project. But the situation being as it is where she lied about her acts of insemination and abortion really is not as big a deal as Yale and the public made it to be. I do not think she should have been expelled from Yale. I believe government, political figures, political ideals, and even religions are the gatekeepers of society. Challenge the government and you’re a radical, challenge the church and you’re Satan. If Yale had not expelled this student their name would be slandered and shamed by many, many tongues. Politics and religion have projected their ideals into America in such a way that even if one disagrees with such norms, one does so silently.

  44. Lexi Drexler says:

    I think that it is unfair of the government to place strict guidelines on artists and how they are able to express themselves and their art, however, when this art crosses a line I feel that it is the responsibility of the government to step in and handle the situation. In the case of the Yale student, a line was crossed, and I believe that it was acceptable for the government to step in. Regardless of the fact that a line was crossed however, the intended effect of the art was conveyed by the artist, to stimulate controversy.
    There is no problem with expressing yourself and your opinions. It is good that art is able to create controversy and stimulate conversation in society, but when a line is crossed like in the case of the Yale student, it is the responsibility of the government to handle the situation. There can still be art that creates controversy and stimulates discussion without crossing boundaries that are acceptable in society.
    I think that it is important for the government to help support the arts. The arts are something that are a vital part of our world today. They help to immortalize our culture and they stimulate discussion and controversy in our society which strengthens our mind.
    The value of art in our world is invaluable. Art and theater provide us with an opportunity to escape from our current reality into a world that is completely developed. It allows us to consider different viewpoints and it helps to stimulate the mind and furthers our knowledge as human beings.

  45. Erica Marie Trofa says:

    First off, I think it is absolutely ridiculous no matter how untrue the claims are that this art major at Yale chose to do a project in which she faked multiple abortions. I think it is incredibly disrespectful to portray oneself as having had several abortions or miscarriages. Recently pregnant myself and having considered abortion (and deciding against it due to moral issues) I find it appalling that someone can “make art” out of something that is such an emotionally trying decision. No one—unless they have gone through it—knows the emotional and physical pain involved in deciding to kill a child. In addition to the emotional pain there is a tremendous amount of physical pain that accompanies terminating a child whether by natural or medical procedures (I know this because I considered IT ALL—even natural abortion). As someone who was never pregnant herself, who never experienced abortion or miscarriage of any kind, I find it incredibly hard to digest the fact that she mimicked the physical pain that goes along with the emotional turmoil of terminating. And all of this for the sake of art. I believe her point was to show that women’s bodies can be used for something other than procreation but WHY?! She truly “symbolized the worst of art — shock without substance”. I am so disturbed by the audacity of someone to feign knowledge of such a painful time in a woman’s life. This all is wide of the point however.
    The question that was asked of us pertained to gatekeepers of our society. In this particular example I find it incredible that despite the upheaval surrounding the project, Yale continued to allow this girl to present her project in their art show. “Shvarts presented a mock-up of the project in class last week — the final piece will go on display at the undergraduate senior art show at Yale on Tuesday”. Although I am absolutely appalled at what she chose as her project I am happy that the school did not stand in the way of art even though their reputation was at stake. They acted as passive gatekeepers which is what this society needs. If every person was deprived their right to present what they believe because it isn’t in the best interests of the larger community then we would live in a very dull world. Freedom of speech is at stake and that is not something that people take lightly. I think a society in which gatekeepers deprive people of their basic rights is definitely facing an uprising of the suppressed artists (even if not everyone is in agreement on whether or not they are artists). There is something to say for people who are unafraid to let their opinions be known—that within itself may make them artists. For a large chunk of history treason—that is the act of betraying one’s own country by slander or the like—was punishable by death. Since the beginning of time government has tried to limit people’s free expression and it will never stop. I think in the United States CURRENTLY people are able to express themselves freely but we are headed down a very dark “big brother”-esque path. The gatekeepers of our society like the FCC are becoming more and more stringent on what goes on TV, what our children listen to, and even the games that they play. The United States itself is likely headed towards a revolution because people don’t take kindly to having their freedom of speech and expression taken away.

  46. Sarah Amon says:

    I feel as though the relationship between people and government is minimal. The g government would rather be safe a fund something that is safe politically correct and doesn’t offend the public. Meanwhile, people like to express the way they feel no matter how it effect other people and their beliefs. I see why the government wouldnt fund the college students artwork because abortion is a big topic that the government tries to justify or deny. And since there is already an uproar about the topic within her school one could imagine the disarray the would occur in the country if a project of that calibre was accepted or even supported. So in cases like these one could say the government acts as a gate keeper to our society.

  47. Ryan Luffey says:

    I feel as though art nowadays is very strict in its process and form, and nothing like it used to be. What happened to the crazy Jackson Pollock’s of this time, this girl is expressing her art in an odd way but its her art, so no limitations or penalties should be put in place although its a slightly outlandish way to create and express your own art. As for the government, I think the government should have some sort of push or help in aiding others with art as a way of therapy or some kind of way to express yourself aside from physical activities such as sports. The gatekeepers do serve an important function to art, as they are the middle man in the presentation and marketing of every artist, but no filters or controls should be set in place in any art, because that is the sole purpose of art, the differences, uniqueness and just oddities that make something what it is. As a society I feel everyone, as an individual prefers to value different things in theater but for the most part we want to be captivated by some instance that we can’t or haven’t been able to replicate in our own lives.

  48. Erica Marie Trofa says:

    I forgot to include whether or not I believe the girl should be expelled:
    I do not think that she should be expelled or punished in any type of way. I wholeheartedly disagree with her decision to do an art project on abortion and women’s bodies. I also wholeheartedly disagree with what she views women’s bodies as BUT it is her opinion and therefore no value can be attached to that. I personally think that she needs psychiatric help but honestly who doesn’t…

  49. Wynter LaTorre-Ovaska says:

    I am extremely conflicted about whether or not the government should financially support the arts. I think the arts are very important for our country and should not be ignored by the governement, but at the same time, receiving money from the government automatically places them as a “gatekeeper” to what the public sees, which is a huge issue for me. I definitely understand why one would not want to be linked to something so controversial if you’re providing the funding, but I do not believe that there should be any limitations on art. Would I personally want to go see this girls “art project”? No. But nobody’s forcing me to look at it. I believe that art, in whatever form that may be, is to be an outlet for the artist, not the audience. Perhaps in olden times artwork and theater were created solely for royal entertainment. But nowadays, art is a form of expression, and it’s true purpose is not just to please the onlookers. For that reason, I don’t think there should be filters on art. When marketers and such shape the audience’s perception before they even see the piece, it is no longer art, but just a business. I fully understand that on a practical level, there is a need for those business decisions. It’s sad to admit, but a lot of art would not exist without money. However, a large part of that is because under-funded art cannot compete with heavily funded pieces. Other than finances, I do not understand why we need filters on art. It’s sole purpose is not to please the public, and nobody is being forced to look at or watch every single art piece. I don’t blame the playwright if I see a show I don’t like, because it’s not as if it is his/her job to please me,

  50. Aaliyah Anderson says:

    I feel as though some people like a dark art, similar to dark humor. Many will not get it, but there are few that will. Shvarts had more of a dark approach to hr art. I get that she was trying to make a point, but she expanded it too much. It is a touchy subject, so she should have left it more for activists and people who look at the topic the same way as she does. I come from a family that doesnot believe in abortion, but if I shared this with any of my family members they would find it repulsive as I did. It is upsetting because it seems like she doesn’t care that it caused such an uproar and many peole were personally effected. I feel like there cannot be a tragedy about a common person, because it is just too common. It may be too much for some to handle. I think the relationship is not trying to cause an uproar and a backlash from the people as Shvarts did. Some things are just not to be adressed in such a way.

  51. Rachel O'Neill says:

    I personally do not think that faking an abortion to show some type of art is socially acceptable. It’s actually sickening. Although, she says that she did not do that, the fact that she acted as if it happened makes the whole situation worse. If you have a notion in your head that you need to express your artistic abilities through blood than maybe you need to change your major and go into the medical field. It would be different if this girl showed the importance of a woman’s body through a woman having a baby or something of that sort. I think there should be restrictions on some art because some art is either pointless or absurd. However, the fact that people view art in different ways makes the whole definition of art hard to comprehend. When it comes to the government, I think that they should not support the arts. There are way more important things that need to be done. Honestly, going to theater does not show how we are as a society, but that is just my opinion. I do not see the importance. Some people absolutely love art, and some people like me just do not really care for it.

  52. tue88597 says:

    Artists’ work should not be limited by taking away funding if it is too vulgar by some set standard. Everyone sees art differently. If there are a hundred people seeing a painting, there will be a hundred different opinions on what that painting says. In the situation of the Yale student, I feel that she was able to clearly justify what she had done. I also believe that the attention brought to the matter highly benefitted her in a way. Art is created with full intentions of it being exposed to the public. She only expected those who were to attend Yale’s art show to see her work, but this has exposed her art and story to a much wider range of people. She knew it would cause conflict with some people because of morals and ethics, but that didn’t stop her from expressing herself in a strong, bold way. She confidently expresses her claims on women’s bodies by not backing down when the criticism started becoming extremely harsh. Art should not be filtered. The mentioned gatekeepers were critics, reviewers, theorists, dramaturgs, agents, marketers, and play readers. They determine what art “should be” expressed to the people. The government should fund art. I feel that society today values art and theatre, especially after seeing the turnout of the plays and art museums I’ve gone to this semester. People value the creativity, entertainment, and emotion provoked through art.

  53. Emma Ross says:

    In my opinion, I think art is different in everyone’s minds. There is no one type of art. What one person sees as art, another person can see as trash. The government has no right to say whether or not it is “correct art.” Everyone has their own ways of expressing it and no one should tell them if they are right or wrong. Although I believe everyone has their own opinions and visions of art, I also believe that what the Yale student did was just outrageous. Did she think that everyone would be okay with it when she told them that she artificially inseminated herself and then induced abortions? If it didn’t really happen then why lie about it? I just think it was ridiculous for her to say that. I do not think that her saying that would be a reason to expel her though. Its not like what she was doing was illegal or anything, although it did cause a huge outbreak of anger.

  54. Shamus Roache says:

    The reason that there was so much attention garnered to this story is mainly because of the “shock value” that was on display. Also, the fact that this art originated from a student at Yale, one of the countries most prestigious schools. The topic of abortion is very sensitive to both men and women, liberals and conservatives. The platform and the topic are the two main avenues that controversy walks.
    As for the government funding the arts I believe that it is impossible and not the proper time for the government to do so just for the arts. The reason I say it is impossible is because there is now way the government can fund a project that it may be totally against. For example it would be hard to imagine the government giving money to a play-write/producer who then decides to make a play about marijuana usage or modern day slavery. The finical state of the country makes it the wrong time for such government spending is the financial state of our country. I m all for the arts but I think peoples social security and military benefits should come first. If the government wishes to set aside some of the money they give to universities to be used on their art programs I am totally in favor of that.
    When it comes to gatekeepers in the theater world I believe the job of the marketing director and the reviewer has the most important job. Our world today is run by social media and advertising. Anytime we see a play we probably see an add or billboard or poster for it, or we have heard reviews from a friend who saw one of the aforementioned advertisements. Also we always look to see how many “stars” a show received or whether or not it has been labeled “critically acclaimed”

  55. Chris Schoen says:

    I think what the girl from Yale did was not really art; it was more of a publicity stunt to bring attention to an issue she thought was important. There are many forms of art but I don’t think trying to raise controversy by claiming you are doing something and not actually doing it is one. A society that holds art to a strict set of rules forces the artist to be unable to express themselves fully. I think the government should support art. Supporting art will allow artist to create things that we can appreciate for years to come. The purpose of the gatekeepers is to maintain the business side of the art. They get money for the production as well as deal with advertising so that there will be an audience to come see the art once it is created. These mediators also deal with answering the question what is theater or drama. These mediators also add context and perspective for the audience. From the theaters we have visited this year I think we value larger plays rather than smaller plays like Assassin. We value plays with a lot of actors, special effects and lights.

  56. Peter Hou phuoc Pham says:

    In America we advocate and stress freedom , for us to turn back on what we fought for– freedom of speech– is outright outrageous. Art should have no limits and no holds to it, its freedom of speech. I think the government should not help support the arts, since they have the power to have what kind of art is shown and not shown. Yes I think there should be a filter in some places for extreme and radical artworks. The roles of the gatekeepers are very important but also very powerful in the theater world. They pretty much control who goes to see the shows, their opinions on it, and how everyone else views the play as well. For instance, a critic can make or break a show with their review.

  57. Joseph J. Sebastian says:

    After reading through both pieces, I came to the conclusion that art will always be subject to scrutiny from at least one group. With that being said, I believe that the expressions that were done by the Yale student was simply an abomination of art and and an Ivy league education. People should have the right to decide what they consider art but only when it is not in the confines of academia. To allow a student the freedom to perform these kind of acts under the veil of artistic education is stretching the tolerance of the general public. I do believe that we need a form of gate keeper to shield the public from expressions that may not be a suitable form of art to the general public. I believe the student should not be expelled for her actions because she later on came to say that it was simply a false statement made to further the impact of her performance. Some repercussions, such as a failing grade, should be implemented because she allowed the ruse to go on for so long without doing anything to stop it from getting out of hand. One phenomenon would be the MPAA, who governs over films that appear on screens all around the country. They rate each film and give it a rating, thus sealing it without the confines of a specific age group. They act as the gate keepers of film, just as critics act as the gate keepers of art. Though we all have freedom of speech and expression, we should be grateful that some people are out there able to set guidelines for the vast majority of people.

  58. Michelle Bouh says:

    Just like everything else, I feel that the government has too much control over the arts as well. Art is how one chooses to express themselves and can be displayed and converted through many different means. In regards to the Yale student, though I found her project a bit extreme, I don’t feel she should be condemned for her creativity. When discovered that her impregnating herself was a hoax and used to express bodily functions of the human body, the situation should have been left alone. Instead people dwelled on the idea of abortion, death and self harm overall losing the creativity she hoped to evoke behind her presentation. Though I could understand why the college / government would not support this project, I don’t think they should strip people of their right to express themselves.

  59. Chris Covone says:

    Personally, I loved the idea behind what the Yale art student did. Going beyond questions of a woman’s body, right to choose, or even the mythology of the body, I think she also significantly impacted this idea of who are the “gatekeepers” of art through what she did. It is accepted that the media, critics, reviewers, and PR people are the gatekeepers of art. However, I believe that the real gatekeepers of art are the people who the art is reflecting. For example, the gatekeepers of the Yale girl’s art piece were anyone with a human body. I understand that the media and reviewers tell us what to like or not like, and what o see or not see, but it is ultimately us that make the final decision. If we do not buy into the ideas of the media or the reviewers, then they have no power over us. And no matter how cloudy it gets sometimes, we will always have that power to make the choice for ourselves. I think that the Yale art piece was a great example of this. No one had to buy into the idea of this girl’s project. No one had to care. If no one took notice or care to her piece, she would have failed at her goal. She needed the people, society, to buy into her art and to explore it in order for her to succeed. I do also believe that there are restrictions on art, and how far it can be pushed before it becomes “unacceptable.” However, once again, I believe those restrictions don’t come from any one higher power, they come from society itself, and people choosing to abide by these restrictions.

  60. Lan Tran says:

    I do not believe that society should hold unreasonable, strict rules of how art should be expressed. People should be able to express themselves however they like while considering other people’s feelings and beliefs. On that note, the Yale student did not consider whether or not she would offend anyone with her project scope. Abortion is already an extremely controversial topic. In addition to that, claiming to inseminate herself for the purpose of aborting fetuses is ethically immoral, even if it was to promote free expression. An equal argument would be a murderer claiming he or she only killed to use the victim’s blood for art. That would be unacceptable, even if it never really happened.
    The government should support the arts, just as it does any other community program. From my understanding, the government currently donates to art programs such as The Philadelphia Mural Arts Program. Art provides children and adults with a getaway, which is tremendously beneficial, especially if they are struggling with other aspects of their lives.
    There should be filters in place when it comes to expressing art to the public. I believe artists should steer clear of using any material that evolved from harming a person or animal.
    Gatekeepers should be able to observe art and provide the public with their opinions. However, they should not be able to completely control how people express themselves.
    The theatre of the Philadelphia Opera Company was simply magnificent. The aesthetics of the theatre suggests that society values physically beautiful settings. It is safe to say that financial supporters contributed a very large sum of money to build and maintain the theatre. I believe that our society is very judgmental when it comes to physically pleasing aesthetics.

  61. Richard Lai says:

    I believe it is necessary for society to some standards as to how art should be expressed. Although can misconstrue my opinion as infringement on their first amendment, some individuals overstep and abuse the freedom of expression. Art, like everything else we enjoy in life should have a degree of regulation; just because a restaurant can serve mud doesn’t mean it should. It’s difficult to pinpoint what is acceptable in society because everyone has different limits. The government should help support the arts, ONLY if they are allowed to regulate it just like the SEC regulates businesses, and the FDA regulates anything we ingest. I feel filters are necessary to determine what is suitable for everyone, and filtering out things that only a few might enjoy.
    Gatekeepers are individuals who help filter and mediate out what the general public will enjoy. Artists are by design, meant to think outside the box; gatekeepers are those who help keep an eye on these individuals from going too far astray. Dramaturges make sure the art work isn’t rife with inaccuracies, reviewers give a general opinion of how the public would perceive it, and PR people make sure the piece is appealing to the mass.
    In respect of the Yale Art Student, I believe she had every right to use her project as a medium to spark a discussion about what a woman can do with her body. Society has a right to be shocked and appalled at her decision to cause all this notoriety, but they don’t have a right to coerce her to stop. Her decisions are her consequences alone; what she chooses to do will not affect a reasonable person.
    In the play “Assassin”, we realize societies’ value and glorify big hits that could potentially injure a player severely. Our society tolerates these events until it affects an individual we know; at that point and time, our gatekeepers condemn and turn their back on the sport that they claim to love.

  62. Kate McCann says:

    The relation between art and society that has stayed constant is how societal cues reflect art. Artists have always tried pushing boundaries, and this example from Yale is no different. Hundreds of years ago, it may have been a women playing a theatrical roll that sparked controversy. Maybe 50 years ago it would have been graphic nudity that startled art-goers. Today it is miscarriage blood. I don’t mean to look at this softly, but there will always be people against a cause, and others for it. The cause itself isn’t what says anything (as it is forever changing), it’s the groups of people on either side of it.

    One realm of gatekeepers are those who fight the artistic expression, and try to label and draw a line for artists. The other gatekeepers of expression push the other way. This imbalance creates a pocket of where “art” falls into. Anything on either side gets tossed away as nonsense, or offensive. Obviously in government today abortion is a hot button issue, and it makes sense for an artist to want to push that boundary, especially in regards to feminism. I think many other artists, whether fine artists or dramatic, try to test the limits that society and the government surround us with. I don’t think I’m on either side of the issue, aside from enjoying the conflict that depicts an interesting view of the human condition.

  63. Samantha Dunnum says:

    I do not think the Yale student should be expelled. She wanted to evoke a feeling in everyone and she certainly accomplished that. She could have possibly went about it all in a better manner, maybe with a little filtering. I don’t believe that there should be strict rules for art and how it is expressed. At some point all art offended and surprised people. Art is meant to make you think and feel. I don’t think society should have strict rules for art and if it does then the society is close minded. A society that only wants to see a certain type of art does not want to really see art, they want to see something that they like. Art is meant to be liked and and not liked, that’s the point. I think the government should help support the arts. But if someone is choosing to use governmental support then the government does have a bit of a say in what their money goes towards. I don’t think all art should be filtered but some of it should be. I don’t think filters should hinder the artists ideas or stop them but i think making art understandable for the masses is good. Some artists choose not to filter and they can run into trouble. Other’s filter so that their art reads well with all types of audiences. Gatekeepers are meant to be the barrier between the artist and the audience. They are in place to make sure that everyone in the situation, the audience, cast, producer and so forth are happy with what is going on. They are completely necessary for a production. Art sometimes is mean to offend people but i think in most cases what are is really trying to do is make you stop and think, and then feel. Gatekeepers help the artist to get his/her art out without making a huge uproar like with the Yale student. Going to the theater this semester certainly has taught me about society. I think theater shows peoples wants and needs. We all want to be loved, liked,happy, hopeful, etc. We all need each other; we need family and friends. I think everyone goes to the theater to feel something different. Some might go to the theater just so they don’t feel alone. Theater brings people together and makes us a unit. The play may only be two hours but for those two hours you get to feel apart of something. Something that is much larger or slightly larger then the group we are used to and it’s also a fleeting thing. Theater happens only once and the feeling you get from being apart of something that will not be around for long is special. That feeling does not occur in many other ways or many other places. Theater shows that we value each other, we value how each other feels and we value being apart of something that is bigger than ourselves.

  64. Chester Errico says:

    Im all for people expressing art in different forms, but when it is as immoral and disruptive to her own body as the article stated, I think the government has full control to step in. I just dont understand how lying about a situation is a form of expressing art. The story made up could have been considered art but lying about it makes it nothing. The society needs to hold rules to keep social norms and not develope huge controversy like this one incident did. This girl should not have been expelled but did cross the line, yes she does have the ability to express her own forms of art, but I think she new what she was getting into before making up the story. I think it was more of a call for attention than expressing her feelings threw art.

  65. Gokul Kumar says:

    I believe art is one of the most important ways that people can express their feelings and emotions. In a world of constant war violence and surprising events art is a gateway that allows people to express how they feel about these events. After hearing about the Yale student who had abortions in order to use blood to create art i honestly was very disgusted. I believe that this form of art is not acceptable in today’s society because it is harming and killing human life and art should not be about that. It should be about life and creating it and creating emotion within oneself. I highly disagree with this students actions and believe it should never be done again. I feel that gatekeepers are very important to art today. These are the individuals that can help a play succeed or fail. They attract society with their descriptions of a show so people will come to see it. Or they could make sure a play fails by informing the public that it is not worth viewing. In this way i see gatekeepers as highly important individuals to today’s society.

  66. Tibin Prince says:

    Art is a form of free expression. Our society has different people with different perspectives. When reading the article I was actually calm because I have heard about other people do that. Many graffiti artists also do the same, they have a message that lies within the art they are trying to spread. I used to graffiti before and my tag was “saints.” My message that I was trying to spread had two parts; one being the fact that every saint has a past and the other being that everyone is a saint in their own little way. Artists go to extreme sometimes when the subject of the art they are doing are something meaningful to them. The Yale art student had a different perspective about this situation and acted upon it. I do think that her actions were unethical. The gatekeepers are people who bring topics like this to light and honestly the government intervening in this situation is unnecessary. We need people like this in our community today because there are still a lot of citizens that have no idea about topics such as abortion etc.

  67. Travis Irizarry says:

    Art as a whole should not be restricted to such strict rules. The concept of art is to capture something. Whether it is an image or an idea the only rule behind art is expression. With this in mind, I would consider what Aliza did to be “art”, not because the statue or videos. I believe that she created a performance through her alleged workings, and that performance was able to spark debate over the idea. I believe that art could always use assistance from something like the government but it is important to bear the idea of art as expression in mind, A discretion may be good to forewarn viewers, but there should be no filters inhibiting artistic vision. As I said, a warning may be an important role for the gatekeepers, this would be something for the critics, reviewers, and agents. I believe that society can be expressed through theatre. In “Assassin”, a much smaller production, we witnessed events events happening between two relatively “normal” people. “Silent Night” on the other hand, a much larger and better funded performance, we witnessed fancy opera singing and aesthetics to reflect the wants of a “higher class.” Each performance in its own sense reflected the values of the people who go to see them.

  68. Frank Eichner says:

    I believe that when it comes to government funding or any type of funding of the arts, I believe it is the choice of that organization as to enforce some sort of guidelines. Just as we as a society have laws in which we have to follow so should artists whose art is being funded by some sort of organization or government. If i was donating money towards art I would not want my money to be going towards a project like this just because I don’t believe in abortion and that is my choice. It that makes me a gatekeeper than so be it. I think what this girl did was almost obviously original and ultimately was her form of art. She inevitably did not execute this experiment but instead the art was in the reactions of society towards what she exclaimed was going to be her art, the artistic statement about women’s bodies. I believe gatekeepers are there to help mold art in to what society deems as acceptable in societies eyes and although I believe art is suppose to be a free expression of ones emotions I feel that if there is some sort of funding, than the person donating the money has their own choice as to implement restrictions or not.

  69. Asel Zamir-Kyzy says:

    Personally, I think what the Yale art student chose for her project is definitely strange and without a doubt uncommon. I understand if this act might have upset and angered some people, especially women, who went through this kind of experience and I wouldn’t be able to appreciate that kind of “art.” However, what she did, is the exact definition of art. Art is unique, different, imaginary, and not everyone can appreciate it. She did something that caught everyone’s attention even if it was mostly in a negative way. But that she ‘mimicked’ or ‘reenacted’, as some would say, was not meant to offend anyone. If that were the case, then all producers of movies, as well as actors, should be punished because what they do is exactly what she did. Actors play a role that is not necessary similar to their personal lives, but they “act” as if it’s their life. Actors ‘mimic’ what they are told to ‘mimic’, but it doesn’t mean what they’re doing is wrong. If anything, this girl is attempting to show the pain and sorrow a woman would feel in that situation, but in a completely different perspective.
    Art is about expressing yourself in any way you feel is right. Although society may disagree with one’s views, but I don’t think they should immediately shut it down just because it comes off as absurd. Critics or gatekeepers must be open-minded and willing to see from the artist’s point of view. As for the government, they are trying to keep order and when something such as the project of this Yale art student is causing some kind of an uprising, of course they wouldn’t want to support anything that forces their own people to go against each other.

  70. Anastasiya Silenok says:

    To be honest, I don’t even know what to think about this whole situation. The whole “art as abortion” really upset me. I am against abortion, of any kind. If this girl was inseminating herself and then was having miscarriages for art, makes my want to punch her in the face (sorry for the violence). But it has been stated that it was a fake and that she didn’t actually do that, so I don’t even know what to believe. If it was a fake, she should not have gotten expelled. Personally her whole idea of this art project was just sickening to me. If anybody thinks that getting pregnant and then aborting your child (not yet a child, a fetus) is a work of art, they are a sick individual who is mentally ill and needs psychiatric help as soon as possible. But hey, “she is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art”. Something that I totally agree with. I may disagree with her choice of art project all i want, but I cannot say or do anything about it. After all, I do agree that artist should be able to express themselves in any way, that was just her way of expressing herself.
    I do not believe that strict rules should be applied to art, or that art should have any limitations. Art is like freedom, you should be able to express it in anyway. If rules will be applied then it will no longer be “free” art. It’s like taking a bird and putting it in a cage. You tell the bird that it can fly, but it only has so much room before it hits the cages wall.

  71. Adi Cohen says:

    I think that society hold strict rules as to how art should be expressed to make sure an uprising like the one the Yale student caused does not happen. Some artists take things too far in my opinion like the girl from Yale. Making people think and step out of their box is a good thing and what artist strive for, but that can be done without breaking basic morals. The government should support creativity and art that questions people, but not if it is so morally wrong that it would make people have an uprising. There should be some filters. The gatekeepers are really important because they serve as kind of a filter. This can be both a good and a bad thing. It can be a good thing to prevent such horrendous extremes like what the Yale girl did. However it can be a bad thing if they do not allow artists to step out of people’s comfort zone. I think from what we have seen so far that we value the arts and value challenging the norm, but we still do not like breaking morality for art.

  72. Dominic Forziati says:

    I don’t think that the government is restricted artists in any way. Even if the events had been real, there was no indication that any action would have been taken against the student.. The real criticism came from the public, which was outraged at the fact that she had several abortions. This criticism comes from the fact that a large majority of the country is part of a religion that does not see abortions as moral. I do not see art as being censored or restricted in today’s society. It seems as though artists want to push the boundaries more and more, and as a result there is a larger public out cry at the controversies that are created. I do not believe that the government should stop funding just because it is controversial, because for many people something as simple as teaching evolution is controversial and funding has never stopped for science education. The government should act as our gatekeepers to protect the people from something that is perhaps to graphic for many audiences, but not from something that is completely legal. Living in this society, we must abide by the laws whether we agree with them or not. If we disagree then we can show our voice, but it if someone breaks the laws then they must understand their that there will be repercussion, however unfair it may be. This student did nothing wrong and should not be punished, and should not have her artwork censored.

  73. Alex Ventresca says:

    I completely agree with your views. Art is such a vast term, so for it to be judged based on right or wrong is, in fact, wrong — art is simply opinion. Art is a personal expression that comes from inner-feelings that no one should judge. Art should always be respected — critiqued, but respected. As David Lynch once said: “surfaces are misleading.” There is more to an artist’s work than how the average critic perceives it. For not even knowing Aliza Shvarts, I felt empathetic toward her situation. A student should never be expelled from a university (especially Yale) for expressing herself!

  74. David Sadlowski says:

    Most people would agree that if this girl was actually doing this she would need mental evaluation, but sometimes people want to express themselves in unusual ways just to she the shock it will cause upon society, and I believe that is an art in itself. Not all people have the ability to cause controversy like this girl did. Horror movies are produced, and sometimes can show the most gruesome scenes, but that never sparks any controversy. Shouldn’t the people making those movies be re-evaluated if this girl was? They are the ones who are coming up with this ridiculous gory stuff. I just think that questioning this girl, but not questioning producers of horror movies is not right.

  75. Collin Utterback says:

    Art to me is how someone expresses themselves, and their feelings or emotions to the world. With the extremely wide variety of people in our world , we are presented with many different kinds of art due to large personal differences in the population. Some types of art can create mass hysteria, others can go undetected with few people even recognizing its beauty. While reading the article i became appalled by the extremes this Yale student went to to create her form of artwork. I think she could have expressed her inner artist through ways that do not include performing an abortion. In my mind that is crossing the line from professional art, to an unethical act. Like i said before everyone has the right to express themselves artistically in their own way, but abortion is just crossing the line. I agree with my fellow classmates that artists need to understand social boundaries, and many people can become offended when they are crossed. Gatekeepers are very influential in art because through them plays can be very successful, or on the other hand, fail miserably. They can single-handedly affect the views of others and how they also look on the play as well, they seem to have much power in their hands when it comes to critiquing artwork or performances. Through their interpretations of the performances they can sway people to come see the play, or stay home and enjoy their couch. If i was in charge of a performance i would do anything possible to positively appeal to the gatekeepers, because if you can achieve that, your show has a high chance of being successful which is the ultimate goal.

  76. Jiali Ling says:

    The art play a large part in making our lives rich. Art stimulates our brain wake up. Art give us a way to be creative and express ourselves. First at all, it is difficult to say the art is right or wrong, is depend why way you looking for. For the case of the Yale girl. I support that she make the art and express herself, but on the other hand, I do not think that she make the project all faked is right. it is hurting some people in the society. Moreover, althought the case of Yale girl is making the negative part of the art, I still think there should no strict rule for the people to create the art. Because the appear of the strict rule would limit people imaginations and broke the creativity. I think the government should support to develop the art. Why support that? We could see arts anywhere, and arts cost many money. The obvious role that in the paper was “Gatekeepers “they are “Theorists, Critics, Reviewer, Dramaturges, Agents and Marketing and PR people”. I feel that they are needed in this society. For instance, a good art still need people to know, if there are no any agent or market, how people know the art. So the appear of the gatekeeper, Artist can foucus their art anytime, gatekeeper can help them to show it to the people. Finally, before I take this class, I never see the play. But during the class and go to see some play and opera, I feel that art is really importan t and society need the art.

  77. Tyler Edwards says:

    What the Yale student did is far from art. For a person to subject them-self to that kind of mental, emotional, and physical pain for no greater cause is border line insane. Art is expression, in my opinion i don’t see how getting an insemination followed by an abortion is an act of expression. I think the arts are a large part of our culture and are a way for people to express individuality. If the government wants to put its money into funding different art programs throughout the country, I do not see any hard in that. However, if these so called art endeavors consist of people mutilating their bodies to “express their womanhood” or whatever the case may be, the government should stay away from that. That is not the image that our country should be portraying to the
    public. Body mutilation and the killing of unborn children is not a form of “art” that the government should indorse. There definitely should be filters in place for what the government will and will not fund in the art industry. Although the government has many other things that take president, someone should be regulating government funding for creative and performing arts that appeal to a large population of the country and maybe forgo contributing to artistic endeavors that are unethical and just outright appalling. The gatekeepers are people who regulate what type of images are portrayed in the media and which images are left out. The gatekeepers impact society’s image and thinking of many different aspects in today’s world. In the arts, the gatekeepers are often times the critics because they are the ones who express approval or disapproval for various works of art.

  78. Alexa N Dippolito says:

    Personally, I do not think that there should be strict rules on art. Artists definitely like to test boundaries and see how far they can go in order to create something new so in a way I don’t think that the Yale students art was that shocking. If Shvarts actually had the abortions and inseminations then I think that would be something to really consider, because that just cannot be considered “art” but the fact that she did it as more of a metaphor doesn’t really surprise me. She was probably just trying to do something to stand out and go further then others, and it worked. I do not think that she should be expelled, due to the fact that it was her own art and she never ended up physically hurting herself or others but i definitely don’t think this idea should be pursued. There is a lot of controversy over abortion though so she had to know that she was going to cause an uproar and get a lot of people angry over this. I think this is where the mediators and the gatekeepers come in. For reasons like Aliza Shvarts, i think these people are crucial. Obviously they should not judge art unfairly, but sometimes there needs to be some regulations. The mediators and gatekeepers can really make or break art. Regardless, the government definitely needs to support the arts. Art is crucial to life and needs to be recognized for its value in society. By the government supporting art it really shows how art is such a fundamental part of our culture and the importance we need to give it as well.

  79. Wynter LaTorre-Ovaska says:

    I am extremely conflicted about whether or not the government should financially support the arts. I think the arts are very important for our country and should not be ignored by the governement, but at the same time, receiving money from the government automatically places them as a “gatekeeper” to what the public sees, which is a huge issue for me. I definitely understand why one would not want to be linked to something so controversial if you’re providing the funding, but I do not believe that there should be any limitations on art. Would I personally want to go see this girls “art project”? No. But nobody’s forcing me to look at it. I believe that art, in whatever form that may be, is to be an outlet for the artist, not the audience. Perhaps in olden times artwork and theater were created solely for royal entertainment. But nowadays, art is a form of expression, and it’s true purpose is not just to please the onlookers. For that reason, I don’t think there should be filters on art. When marketers and such shape the audience’s perception before they even see the piece, it is no longer art, but just a business. I fully understand that on a practical level, there is a need for those business decisions. It’s sad to admit, but a lot of art would not exist without money. However, a large part of that is because under-funded art cannot compete with heavily funded pieces. Other than finances, I do not understand why we need filters on art. It’s sole purpose is not to please the public, and nobody is being forced to look at or watch every single art piece. I don’t blame the playwright if I see a show I don’t like, because it’s not as if it is his/her job to please me.

  80. Brandon C George says:

    Society’s undying need to censor anything it doesn’t understand shows how limited we truly are mentally. Since the dawn of our very existence humans have tried to censor anything we don’t understand or can’t comprehend due to a one dimensional thought process. This Yale student is being chastised because she chose to express her art in a manner that has never been seen before. As far as the government supporting the arts, I think it depends how were talking about supporting. If we’re talking about no legislature against any form art that doesn’t destroy or harm others physically, then so be it. However, if we’re talking about the government funding the arts, I do not believe they should. People carry this belief that money controls everything. You give that power to a government and it will believe that it can censor or control any art that is produced from the funds provided. Why should any control or filter be placed on anyone person’s form of expression if it doesn’t physically harm anyone? The gatekeepers can either be a filter and a censor for the art, or they can act as a portal, to truly open the minds of those who are incapable of understanding or accepting that which is before them. Gatekeepers can play multiple roles for the people, maybe not in unison, but nonetheless multiple roles. As a society we have a long way to go, granted, there are people who look to find a deeper meeting or understanding in any form of art that may be presented to them. However, in our society remains those that are unwilling to take in and embrace what they don’t understand. There are those who would rather have their eyes blinded to any form of truth or reality that is beyond their comprehension.

  81. Meghan Shortt says:

    I think the fact that our society still has filters on expression says that we are a society that has not really come far in the issues of freedom and equality. I think that all people should have the right to expression, and our society and government should realize that all individuals have the right to free expression.

    I think that the government should support the arts when it comes to schools. When school budgets dont pass, the first programs to be cut are art and music programs. I think that kids need to learn about art and music as a way to express themselves.

    I think that all artists should have the right to free expression. Although the actions of the student from yale go against the morals that I have for myself, I believe that she should have the freedom to her own body and her own expression. I dont think that art is something that should be censored because personal feelings are free of filters, and art is an expression of feelings. I think that people who are offended by some pieces of art need to realize that the offense they are feeling is personal, and just because they are put off by a piece of art, they shouldn’t block the rest of the world from experiencing it just because of their discomfort.

    I think that many people enjoy viewing art, whether it is pleasing to us or offensive. I think that we as a society enjoy whatever makes us feel. We all have different tastes, and what offends some people, is interesting or intriguing to others.

  82. Michelle Dinh says:

    Art can’t be limited to just one thing that pleases society’s status quo. It can be expressed in many ways because “art” has an underlying meaning that only the artitst may know and it is a riddle for society to solve. Although I personally do not see the art in this girl’s work, there may be many other people who agree with her and appreciate what she has done. There is no standard for what art should live up to; as long as there is a significant meaning and attention grabbing aspect then that can be considered art. The government would gain benefits and positive outlooks from the art community if they supported the funds, but considering our economic state right now, they are better off using that money for something else. The gatekeepers may give their opinion but I don’t believe that should make up society’s decision on the art itself. Everyone has their own personal opinions and personality that help them decide whether they agree with a controversy such as this girls art. Art is such an important aspect in today’s society and it should have no boundaries as long as it means something to someone.

  83. Erin Griffith says:

    I believe that the girl from yale should not have been expelled but should have been punished. What she did was ethically and morally wrong, something like that should not be joked about. I believe that art is free expression but it crosses boundaries when you lie about killing multiple innocent fetus’. Her idea of comparing art with the human body is interesting but the idea went a little far, and she got what she wanted, she wanted an uprising and she got it. I don’t believe the government should fund the arts because they will try to change it. Art isn’t about change, its about people’s expression and when people try to express themselves the government steps in and stops them. They would try to control what the art is and the way people express themselves. The gatekeepers are vital to theater. They decide what goes in and out, they are the filters to decide things that make the play so that the audience will enjoy it. I think society is a lot more engaged with art and the theater than I could have ever thought. Since seeing the plays I realized it a lot more because there are a lot of people who come to these plays and musicals and pay a lot of money to see them. Clearly society still appreciates theater cause it is still in business and seems to be doing pretty well.

  84. Ashoka Robin says:

    I believe that rules like these make society very lifeless and lackluster. This doesn’t only suppress an artists means of expression, but by suppressing this expression it takes away an opportunity for society to be exposed to greatness, innovativeness, and creativity. Missing these oppurtiniteis of artistic exposure due to filtering damages our society as it gradually can deprive everyone of the ability to think out of the box. For the most part what we are exposed to molds us into who we are. For example, part of the reason i took the class dramatic imagination was just to have this extra piece of knowledge of a culture in my head for years to come. Years later the artistic values i obtain from this class may come into play in a certain situation. If the government told temple that they were not aloud to host classes such as dramatic imagination due to its promotion of creativity, we all would never have been able to obtain the knowledge that this course offers as well as the artistic exposure we get from the plays we attend. This is ultimately what filtering is doing, depriving society of chances to be exposed to ideas that may be great or innovative.

  85. Dien Ho says:

    Society do hold strict rules on how art is express because if the art stray away from the norm then it will be rejected. What the Yale student did, to me, is definitely not art. If in fact what she did was true and have been going through many abortion many time and use the blood to create her art then she would have killed many lives in the process. I believe that the government should fund the arts because art is a piece of history. There should be no filters because arts should be expressive and represent what the artist truly want to show to the world. The school, people, and government act as the gatekeepers keeping the balance and defining when something has gone beyond what arts should be. We value history but at the same time try to challenge our perception and spark a conversation.

  86. Nicole Ashley Ney says:

    After hearing about the art project made by Yale student Aliza Shvarts, though I doubt I would appreciate it, I would indeed classify it as art. Art is an ambiguous term and it is it’s ambiguity that allows it to attract so many people. With that being said, I feel people’s artistic expression should not be suppressed by society. Though an abortion video may seem outlandish and crude to one person, another could see it as inspiring and aesthetic. The government’s censorship on art is simply an attempt to appease to one piece of society, while inadvertently stifling the creativity of another. I find it unnecessary to filter art. I believe if someone is offended by a piece, simply do not look at it. The gatekeepers play an important part in this method. The gatekeeper’s role in art is to control the presentation and marketing, by doing so, they essentially shape the audience. They report the crucial aspects of a piece to magazines, websites, newspapers, and other sources of information. This detailed reporting, allows for people to understand a piece before seeing it and use the information to decide for themselves whether they’re interested or not. Based on the performances we’ve seen this semester, I can conclude that we, as a society, do value the arts. At the Academy of Music, there were thousands of people gathered to appreciate and enjoy the art which was Silent Night. I feel as though everyone values art, it’s the matter of which pieces they, themselves, appreciate which cause the conflict.

  87. Robert D. Morris says:

    I don’t think that Shvartz should have been expelled. I find the art project personally repulsive, but I appreciate the debate it sparked, and the way she is using art to push the envelope and force society to confront issues. If it is her own body, she can produce the art that she wants, as an artist. I think this project was intentionally shocking, and over the top, to force the issue and create a social dialogue on the role of art, and force people to confront freedom of expression and its practice even when applied to things that people don’t agree with, similar in a way to political activists that get themselves arrested and then fight the government, generating public awareness.

    I think that societies that strictly limit their art are perpetrating a crime on their own people, and that art and all forms of expression (barring inciting civil war, maybe) should be left open to guarantee a healthy, free society. Protecting people’s religious preferences or sense of morals is not as important as allowing artists to question society and advance cultural understanding- people’s feathers will be ruffled, but they need to deal with it, because a person or people’s beliefs on what is appropriate, Shvartz’s work included, is not more important than freedom of expression for a society.

    Government involvement in the arts makes me nervous. I can’t imagine that any government could possibly open-mindedly support art, especially art controversial or political in nature. Civilian art organizations, funded by the government, maybe, but I am extremely skeptical that politicians anywhere in the world are going to give money to a group and not be expecting to have bought something with it, if you follow me.

    I think that filters inhibiting art should be destroyed as much as possible. Controversial art will absolutely continue to create social upheaval, but it is necessary for the healthy evolution of a culture. People need to be able to explore taboos and seek a greater understanding of society.

    The roles of the “gatekeepers” mentioned from various parts of history have all been to advance their own agenda, and dampen those that might foment dissent or make people critical of their platform, agenda, etc. The Church wanted to control art to spread their ideas and clamp down on anyone critical, and the NEA refusing to support art that it doesn’t approve of is about as close to an equivalent as a western society will permit its government to exhort, for now, and, for now, it is still trying to advance its own agenda through supporting what it likes and suppressing what it doesn’t.

    The theater I have seen this semester does portray what we value, in a way, but there were and are gatekeepers with their hands in what gets published and what doesn’t, so it is hard to believe that the theater that goes on is a completely honest reflection of the society that produced it. Theater that makes it to the stage, though, likely does reflect the parts of our society that we want to recognize and support, or want to support more of, so it is still useful for determining what a society considers important or worth celebrating, even in its self-critical aspects.

  88. Merissa Brophy says:

    understand the creative prospect where your artwork is to challenge it’s viewers and really make you think about the piece and what message it is relaying; however, I do not believe that Aliza Shvarts answered the question of: “Are we only supposed to do what our bodies were ‘naturally’ meant to do, which is to procreate?” in a moral manner. On the contrary, I do believe in freedom of speech and believe that everyone deserves the chance to express their feelings or reveal a message through their artwork, but only to a certain extent without being completely disrespectful to all. I understand that no matter what you do there is always going to be someone who is offended by your work; you cannot please everyone. On the contrary, I do believe there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed and Shvarts crossed that line. Like the article said, “Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.” Shvarts was trying to portray these acts as real and that is disgusts me. I personally think you have a very sick mind to fake aborting fetus’ and use their blood to make a statement. I personally see that as murder. Even though I do not appreciate Shvarts artwork, I do not believe that she should be expelled for it. Like I mentioned earlier, freedom of speech: this was Shvarts message and she was technically not murdering anyone under American law since abortion is not illegal. I wish I didn’t feel as art needed filters but sometimes I feel as someone is taking it too far. I still believe that the government should fund art. Without the arts, life would be dull and gray. Art is the only way you can run away without leaving home.

  89. Merissa Brophy says:

    Though I found the article the article interesting, I was highly disturbed. I understand the creative prospect where your artwork is to challenge it’s viewers and really make you think about the piece and what message it is relaying; however, I do not believe that Aliza Shvarts answered the question of: “Are we only supposed to do what our bodies were ‘naturally’ meant to do, which is to procreate?” in a moral manner. On the contrary, I do believe in freedom of speech and believe that everyone deserves the chance to express their feelings or reveal a message through their artwork, but only to a certain extent without being completely disrespectful to all. I understand that no matter what you do there is always going to be someone who is offended by your work; you cannot please everyone. On the contrary, I do believe there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed and Shvarts crossed that line. Like the article said, “Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.” Shvarts was trying to portray these acts as real and that is disgusts me. I personally think you have a very sick mind to fake aborting fetus’ and use their blood to make a statement. I personally see that as murder. Even though I do not appreciate Shvarts artwork, I do not believe that she should be expelled for it. Like I mentioned earlier, freedom of speech: this was Shvarts message and she was technically not murdering anyone under American law since abortion is not illegal. I wish I didn’t feel as art needed filters but sometimes I feel as someone is taking it too far. I still believe that the government should fund art. Without the arts, life would be dull and gray. Art is the only way you can run away without leaving home.

  90. Brandon R. Gibson says:

    I found this article to be very interesting, When I started to read the very beginning of the article the first thing that i immediately found my self tasseling with trying to understand how abortion and art can collide in the same sentence. I was shocked that someone would think it was necessary to create art, in what I feel to be, a very extreme and possibly disturbing way. I understand there is a line between a woman’s body and art and some may support that line to be crossed, but I felt her concept of using abortion was a bit puzzling and somewhat disturbing to me. This topic surrounds a even more controversial subject, abortion. No matter how you feel about the topic, it’s still a bit off putting for one to believe that aborted fetuses are an art form. I support any artist that are capable creating art through their own eyes and perspective, its inviting for someone like me into someone else’s point of view. All people should be able to express themselves; however, I feel that there is a boundary that society sets, not to say that’s wrong or right, but I personally feel that you can’t cross that line with our expecting backlash, criticism, and consequences. Anyone can tell a lie to get a rise out of people, Personally, I don’t feel that this is art. I feel like this was something generated so that it could captivate and gain attention. In my opinion, art is done just for shock value. I can’t speak for the artist, but in my opinion this was done to shock an audience. Therefore, I completely agree that this project was “shock without substance.” This project caused an uproar, and seemed to cause more discrepancies then support. I don’t feel like it brought any sort of value and personally I feel like this was done out of amusement. Some people do things for attention, no matter how crazy it may sound or seem. This is a perfect example of such actions.

  91. faisal alhilal says:

    People like to express their feelings and opinions in many different ways; some use writing, singing, dancing, acting, and art is one of them. I do not believe that art should be restricted by rules that the individuals have the freedom to express what in their mind without limitation. However, the artist should not take it to the extreme and they should consider what is acceptable in the eye of the society because their opinion do mater the most.
    In the case of Yale student, Aliza is one of the artist who has imagination and creativity in her work but what she did is off limit. I do not consider what she did as an art because it involve hurting herself in many ways. To think of it I do not think that anyone would be fascinating about this piece of art although it does carry an important message about woman’s body. The government should not fund the art because the government will put standerds on what art should look like and by this way there will be no freedom in expressing one’s feelings and opinions.
    In this semester I do believe that our society value theater, seeing the huge number of people attending the different plays is really beautiful knowing that there are people appreciate this kind of art.
    Gatekeepers and mediators they shape the responses and the expectations from the audience. They, review, critics, marketer, and play readers. The gatekeepers role is very important because they can deliver the purpose of the art, they act like the middle man between the art and society.

  92. Brandon R. Gibson says:

    Correction: Art is not done just for schlock value*

  93. Tonii Mackie says:

    Art is often judged as being good art or bad art. The factors that differentiate between the two should be irrelevant to true art. Art in itself is merely the result of skill and imagination in an artist, regardless the outcome. Unfortunately, art has been filtered by gatekeepers of society. These gatekeepers do attribute to the success and progression of the arts in many instances, but they form obstacles for art as well. Critics for example, with their knowledge on the artistic process provide evaluation that citizens/patrons and art collectors base their actions off of. What happens when critics downplay artists and artwork? Previous instances of this didn’t allow some of the best artists of their time the spotlights they deserved, because their work was not “good” art during its time. Critics and reviewers alike, shape the opinions of others that view art, rather than allowing them to make their own opinions.

    Helping the arts is a must. The arts allow an outlet for people to express themselves effectively and positively. The government should support the arts because they positively impact societies’ growth. Society confines art. Government and other backers of many art programs continuously favor certain displays of art because they show to be more beneficial for those that finance it. When filters such as these are in place, art is not freely expressed. In instances such as the Yale art and academia case, and others in which the welfare of others are threatened or extreme instances of overall morality is questioned gatekeepers should step in. She should not have been supported in my opinion due to her extreme and inconsistently argued art ideology.

    The opera, though not viewed as the most popular by many was packed by those who did support it. When strongly supported or even greatly funded at least, art should not be in question of loosing its place in society. Most of the money for the production of the show we saw came from outside investments. many people were were excited and well dressed for the event. Society places value on the opera, so as a whole so should we. For the smaller production of Assassin it played on current events and meaningful events. Though quite smaller the show was sold out and over capacity. Such support should never be neglected. Society cares about important concepts and morals being expressed through theatre.

  94. Isabel Lopez says:

    In my opinion, I think the work of “art” the Yale girl was completely over the top. I do not agree with her in calling her piece “art.” Although I do believe artists have every right to be creative and to think “out of the box,” but I think she went a little too far. I definitely do not believe society holds strict rules about how art should be expressed; I do believe that what this specific Yale student was extremely over the top. I felt as if though she tried too hard to take her piece of art to the next level. Nonetheless, it makes sense to me as to why she got in trouble for piece of art.
    Also, I believe that the government should definitely help support the arts because art is a perfect way to express yourself. I feel as if though government should definitely provide funds for the arts since its beneficial to people trying to express themselves.
    Gatekeepers mediate the art and business, making them important people. While gatekeepers do not work directly with the artists, they do help shape the audience. They also edit the news, advise finances, write reports on a specific performance or art in newspapers, television, and magazines.
    Throughout my observations of theatres so far in the semester, I learned that society does in fact value theatres and art. I have noticed at every single play that I have attended thus far, there is a good amount of people in the room. It makes me happy to see that the arts is still alive and well and does not really seem to be dying out. I also enjoy the way society accepts and values creativity during a time when “being different” seems out of the norm.

  95. Lavar Jackson says:

    I believe that art doesn’t have any restrictions and to contain or harbor ones artistic ability ultimately limits creativity and deprives artists of the of what they truly passionate about. The society holds strict rules to how art should be expressed because a large percent of the population are not artistically astute and don’t understand the aspect of self expression. I believe the government should support the art just as much as they support education. The Gate Keepers may tend to offer insight but they don’t expect to influence ones decision. I do not have the abilty to yet to determine whether we value the play as a society but by the end of the class i plan on having that abilty.

  96. Tyler Snook says:

    To start, I do not feel government should be involved anywhere in art. I realize they could provide funding and by that art could become more economically sound but just as everything else, every time government gets involved they find a way to impose their will. If the government is providing funds than they will in some way or another have some control on what is being produced, especially because in the case of the Yale student, they will not want to be tied into certain individuals’ acts or creative nature. This also makes me want to dismiss gatekeepers, who I believe are pointless middlemen. Again, it is someone providing their own personal insight upon a piece and deciding whether or not we as an audience should see it. They did not create the art, therefore should not have the right to try judge and take the place of the artist who actually conceptualized what is at hand. Government and gatekeepers I believe go hand-in-hand, and although it helps to provide marketing aspects as well as possible economic gains, it takes away from the nature of what art truly is and will hinder art’s ability to express. And for the Yale student, you can call that creative, and say that it is legal because it is, but at the end of the day morally she sucks and is completely out of her mind. My opinion.

  97. Max Stahl says:

    I think that this young Yale art student’s form of expression, while seemingly radical to some, isn’t all that bad as it is made out to be. With that in mind, it is rather inappropriate to base any work that is supposed to be representative of one’s self on a lie. In the media today, we see stories laid out in front of us for the “shock value”. While indeed shocking, that aspect of her art was not what caused such an upheaval, but rather her dishonesty. If she were to have made known that she was expressing herself in a superficial, non-factual manner, then the upheaval would not have been nearly as severe at it was. Either way, she should not have received punishment for her creative endeavor. If everyone were arrested for being radical with their art, we’d still be in the age of cave paintings. In the true spirit of freedom in this country, the government should support the theatrics as best as it can, as it is the ultimate expression of artistic freedom. From the creation of set pieces to the art form of the acting itself, all of theatre is representative of a truly free and wholly dynamic society. The gatekeepers of this art form have a responsibility to find those with a talent and drive for theatrics and help them achieve their full potential through giving them what ever resources they need to do so (within their means, of course). In theatre, we tend to value the past and the present more than looking ahead to the future. I believe this is appropriate, as all theatre should be looked at as a celebration of our past, through which we may show our appreciation for the fact that we are able to view and create such art if we have the means to do so.

  98. Don Otto says:

    I would have to say that what Shvarts did as an “Art Project” walks a fine line between what is art pushing the boundaries of society and what is just downright wrong. Had the story been true (and all religious beliefs aside), I would have to say that it could constitute art in a way, though it leans more towards a journalistic side. Many paintings of tragedies are considered art, and if approached in a more reasonable fashion, maybe Shvarts’s project could even be considered art. It was meant to inspire and to evoke a reaction, which worked. Yet once she decided to include video, it definitively crossed the line. Even the blood and Vaseline sculpture would push the boundaries a little bit. There’s a time and place for everything, and that is part of where filtering comes in. Something like this would be frowned upon in the majority of public art shows. Yet in the ever-expanding online community, it may have been more accepted. I feel as though expulsion may have been a bit much for the case, yet would understand how it might send a message.

    This case aside, the arts certainly need government funding. Any form of art, from painting to theatre, is not highly lucrative except at the most professional levels. I know that I can find some value in most art that I come across. Any art is, to some degree, a form of self-expression that others can relate to, yet when it comes down to what is cut first in school districts when money is tight, the arts are normally the first to suffer. An increase in government funding for art programs (and education in general), would help to minimize the damages caused by tight budgets. If funding is coming from the government, it is inevitable that the government will want to have some say in the types of art being created; but this is an unavoidable consequence of the state of affairs. As far as the gatekeepers in modern society, there are a number of powers who have influence. For instance, a show taking place in a more conservative setting, such as a church, may have to appeal and be appropriate due to the location. The greatest gatekeepers though come in the form of funders. The show must live up to the expectations of its funders if the company performing it wishes to continue to receive funding from those individuals, groups, or companies. All-in-all, we as a society value that which we can relate to, and often what we can laugh at. When art makes us see ourselves with a sense of humor, poking fun at our foibles, that is when we most appreciate it.

  99. Larbriah Morgan says:

    I believe that the government supporting the arts is a very good thing because believe it or not art does help society function. It allows creative thinking to manifest itself in a logical thing world when creative thinking is what really moves the world forward as far as companies advancing and what not. As far as creating art goes, filters should only be placed based on the time and the place. The tales student’s project was disgusting to me, but that shows there were no limits for her mind when it came to art. I’m pretty sure there are people who support her cause and would go see her art if it were on display, but there’s a time and place for everything. Yale and a lot of the world just wasn’t ready for something that deep, I know Im still not ready for something that deep. Also the young woman should have asked herself was this something suitable for a school project, she should have asked the limitations. Societies that have strict rules when it comes to the arts are probably just keeping the public’s, by the masses, interests in mind when creating their restrictions. The gate keepers basically try to make an artist “better” by critiquing their work, and artists get “better” merely based on what e public wants to see.

  100. Xiaoyue Zhao says:

    Trhough this semester, Ifind out our society really does value theatres.I think all of them is really different plays .Becuase the people who see the play,the people express their suddestion is different. Through our daily life has been changed,.many people have different point to the art of play. I think we re ally value all the creativity that comes out of the theatre.

    First I don’t think Yale girl did “art”. I didn’t know where she was coming from by telling everyone that what she ‘made up’ is art. I think it is very different to consider that art, but maybe that is just me. I do not think society holds strict rules about how art should be expressed because what the Yale student did was very over the top and I do not understand the reason why she has been got in trouble.

    I think the roles of the “gatekeepers” mentioned from various parts of history .It has all been to advance their own agenda, and dampen those that might foment dissent or make people critical of their platform, agenda, etc. The Church wanted to control art to spread their ideas and clamp down on anyone critical, and the NEA refusing to support art that it doesn’t approve of is about as close to an equivalent as a western society will permit its government to exhort, for now, and, for now, it is still trying to advance its own agenda through supporting.

    Finally,in my opinion,I think it is important is the spirit of art.

  101. peiming zhao says:

    First, I believe the speech and believe that everyone have the chance to express their feeling and sent a message with artwork, but only without being completely disrespectful to all. I understand that no matter what you do there is always going to be someone who is offended by your work; you cannot please everyone.Second, I believe there is soneway that it shouldn’t be crossed and Shvarts crossed.Such as article said, “Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.” Shvarts was trying to portray these acts as real.The theater is that I have seen this semester had very value, in a way, but there were and are gatekeepers with their hands in what gets published and what doesn’t, so it is differcult to believe that the theater that goes on is a completely honest reflection of the society that produced it. Theater that makes it to the stage, With, likely does reflect the parts of our society that we can recognize and suppor.so that it is useful for determining what a society considers important or worth celebrating, even in its self-critical aspects.

  102. Peiming Zhao says:

    First, I believe the speech and believe that everyone have the chance to express their feeling and sent a message with artwork, but only without being completely disrespectful to all. I understand that no matter what you do there is always going to be someone who is offended by your work; you cannot please everyone.Second, I believe there is soneway that it shouldn’t be crossed and Shvarts crossed.Such as article said, “Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.” Shvarts was trying to portray these acts as real.

    The theater is that I have seen this semester had very value, in a way, but there were and are gatekeepers with their hands in what gets published and what doesn’t, so it is differcult to believe that the theater that goes on is a completely honest reflection of the society that produced it. Theater that makes it to the stage, With, likely does reflect the parts of our society that we can recognize and suppor.so that it is useful for determining what a society considers important or worth celebrating, even in its self-critical aspects.