Nearly everyone talking about this is an idiot

In theory, most of you by now have heard the name Aliza Shvarts. She is an art student at Yale University whose somewhat controversial senior project has garnered a bit of attention on the internets. If you're interested, the whole narrative, as played out mostly in the Yale Daily News, is worth reading. If my senior project link is read as #1, the narrative plays out as such:

#2, Yale says she made it up.
#3, Shvarts calls Yale's statement "ultimately inaccurate."
#4, Shvarts gives her own explanation of her project.
#5, Yale says "admit publicly that you made it up, or you can't display your project."
#6, Shvarts refuses to do so.
#7, By the way, a bunch of people think that Shvarts is really gross, and her adviser is a bit of a weirdo, but the whole thing doesn't seem to be scaring the freshmen off.

In my mind, there are two big problems with this, one of which has been well-covered over at Short Schrift. To this reader, Shvarts' own essay on her project (Link #4) hedges her claim. Shvarts refuses to state publicly (at least to Yale's satisfaction) that her project is a fiction, but only because she has never really claimed anything otherwise. Her essay describes her experiences as "exist[ing] only in its telling," and describes that telling as "a myth," and "copies of copies of which there is no original." (Or a simulacrum, for those of you who are keeping score.) She emphasizes that she never claims that any conception has ever taken place, but that "[i]n a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term 'miscarriage' or 'period' [to the blood Shvarts claims to be displaying]."

It is worth pointing out that the actual exhibition is absolutely immaterial to Shvarts' project. It doesn't matter if the installation is ever seen. We have seen it already.

My second big problem, is actually with the public, and not with Shvarts. I first read about Shvarts' project in The Chronicle of Higher Education (thank you academic journalism!), and by the time I finished reading their description of her project, I believed that it was largely fictional. I was amazed that so many people were willing to accept at face value the claim that someone could impregnate themselves and induce miscarriage several times using "herbal abortafacients" within a period of only nine months. (Apparently, a number of medical experts at Yale agree with me, and kudos to Jezebel for calling bullshit back on Thursday.)

What does it say about public knowledge of reproductive function that almost none of the discussion of Shvarts' project has focused on its implausibility? Sure, like Short Shrift, I wish that Shvart's project was a little more Nietzsche and a little less sanitized, ivory-tower, pseudo-provocation, but ultimately people, she sold you the big lie and you bought it.

That's worth talking about, and that means that Shvarts' project is a success.

Reading Stein will do that to you too.

This means I need to move the book to a different part of my shelf

Pulitzer Prize winners announced yesterday:

Fiction: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz

Poetry: (shared) Time and Materials by Robert Hass and Failure by Philip Schultz

Drama: August: Osage County by Tracy Letts

i is for improvisation

(The following is a talk that I delivered at the MSU Honors College ADS/UDS dinner on April 3, 2008. Speakers were asked to prepare remarks inspired by NPR's "This I Believe" series.)

I believe in improvisation.

Considering that I am reading a pre-prepared text from a printed page, this may require some explanation.

I believe that to live is to repeat.

We breathe and every breath is a repetition.

This repeating is a part of us. We do it again and again, day after day. Our bodies repeat in their breathing. They repeat in their eating and sleeping. They repeat in the big things, and they repeat in the little things. Repairing and replacing individual cells day after day, again, and again, and again.

This repeating is a property. Bodies breathe. But this repeating is not a property of bodies alone. This repeating is a part of us. We do it again and again, day after day. We eat the same things. We see the same people. We wear the same clothes. We do this day after day, again, and again, and again.

This repeating has a name. Alone, it is called habit. But this repeating is not only a property of bodies alone. Repeating also happens between bodies and among them. We see the same people, and these same people see us. We say the same things in the same places. When we see the same thing again, we know its meaning without having to think about it, because we have seen it before. This repeating also has a name. Repeating between bodies, repeating of meaning, repeating that is meaning in itself is called convention.

This repeating is inescapable. There is a name for a body that does not repeat.

In language, repetition creates meaning. The creation of a word does not create meaning. It is the repetition of that word by another that creates meaning.

A word is a repetition. Language is repeating. This, for a writer, is a problem.

When I was a child I would repeat words in my head until they broke down into sounds. At first glimpse two has a meaning but repeated it is a shape and a sound. Two. Even when broken down it can be said quickly and has meaning again. Thought and meaning are not always compatible.

As a writer, an artist, I do not want to repeat. I want to be original. Isn’t good art supposed to be original? Isn’t plagiarism the unforgivable sin?

It is perhaps instructive to note that the book of Ecclesiastes, which contains the words “There is nothing new under the sun,” was written 2200 years ago. It’s all been done.

Originality, like nature, is an illusion. Novelty—an unfamiliar or unrecognized combination—while often mistaken for originality, is simply a result of mathematical permutation in time, which allows the repetition of individual results to be far enough separated so as to provide the semblance of the new. In fact, the elements are the same. It is the contemporary communication explosion which has revealed the undeniable limitation of the set from which all cultural, social, and political combinations are drawn. We breathe, and each breath is a repetition. Within experience, difference exists only as an accident of space. Geography alone separates my footsteps from those taken on the moon. It would, however, be a logical fallacy to conclude from this argument that similarity is somehow more essential than difference. Each is a comparative quality, imposed by cognition. The object itself is unaffected.

What is left if we are always repeating?

Repeating

Repeating

I believe in improvisation.

Meaning is repetition. Repetition is a property of bodies. Thought and meaning are not always compatible.

We breathe and every breath is a repetition.

We breathe, and every breath is different.

There is a name for this difference. Difference in repetition is called variation.

We breathe without thinking. Each breath is different, but it is not the difference which carries meaning. Thought and meaning are not always compatible.

It is possible to think about breathing. It is possible to breathe differently as a result of thinking. It is possible to do this again.

In language, repetition creates meaning. A word does not create meaning. It is the repetition of that word by another that creates meaning. A word is a repetition. Language is repeating. There is a name for this repeating in language. The name for this repeating in language is not speech.

The name for this repeating in language is reading.

It is perhaps instructive to note that reading has nothing to do with speaking or with words on a printed page. It is possible to read an expression or a gesture. It is possible to read a breath.

It is possible to think about repeating. It is possible to study and know the ways of repeating. It is possible to know the differences in repeating and the differences in those differences.

It is not possible to stop repeating. It is possible to study and know the ways of repeating and to repeat differently as the result of thinking. It is possible to use difference in repeating to create meaning. It is possible to do this again.

There is a name for thinking and repeating and repeating differently as the result of thinking and doing this again.

This is called improvisation.

I believe in improvisation.