Originally Posted by matclone

Art by its nature encompasses work that may be controversial or offensive. That's what art does. Without art, we would only see officially approved points of view. For example, films (and sometimes filmmakers), in the U.S. and Russia (to name two places) were censored throughout much of the 20th-century. I personally find many contemporary films to be offensive, with their gratuitous sex and violence. But I would not want to return to censorship.

The exhibit in controversy here will reflect on the artist. It will also be fodder for those who are always attacking higher education.

Your statement proves you cant tell the difference between art... and propaganda.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"I think Yale should institute a rule that says that no human can be harmed while they are putting together their little art projects. That ought to cover it for the future."

-Ya, that wouldn't lead to any additional controversy or debate...

OK, really go out on a limb and say "no human can be killed while you are putting together your artwork".

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

OK, really go out on a limb and say "no human can be killed while you are putting together your artwork".

But aren't there those who feel that the embryo/fetus (depending on when she was inducing the miscarriage) is not killing a human? I'm not sure your rule would change this particular situation.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"I think Yale should institute a rule that says that no human can be harmed while they are putting together their little art projects. That ought to cover it for the future."

-Ya, that wouldn't lead to any additional controversy or debate...

There is federal law for human research, Dept of Health and Human Services that applies to undergrad research too and that could apply in this situation; however, I'm not sure it applies to self mutilation.