Talk:Aliza Shvarts

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yale student abortion art controversy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Page is tagged for Notability, and I support keeping that tag in place until multiple, WP:RS, INDEPTH sources covering some accomplishment independent of the Yale student abortion art controversy are brought ot the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not tagged for "notability" but over the sources. With an Afd over notability just closed, keeping it, it shouldn't be tagged for that. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It closed as "no consensus" after being BLUDGEONED to death by and strange Nom who was certainly a special-purpose account whose purpose was creating and keeping this article. Needs eventual revisiting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my hands are clean, in the sense that I !voted to merge to the article on the 2008 artwork with a name change away from the ridiculous "controversy" crapola in the title. To their credit Legacypac said "My opinion is the Yale article is very poorly named."[1] I consider it an editorial responsibility to construct a good-quality article on all that we know about the artwork and the artist too. We are here to compile a reliably-sourced reference on a topic. We are not here to gratuitously express opinions on artworks and especially not in the titles of articles. And I think one article could have done that well and that is why I !voted to merge with a title change to the target article on the 2008 proposed performance piece. Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory I did not bludgeon, it's ridiculous to assert that. You're convinced I'm acting in bad faith somehow: I stated in my very first post that I'm new to Wikipedia, and that I'm a writer and art historian who is researching the artist. I am invested in the subject because the "Yale student" article misrepresents an interesting and important piece of performance art as nothing more than a hysterical controversy, and when I began the discussion, the artist's name redirected to the "Yale student abortion art controversy" article, which, as far as I can tell, is the only instance of an artist (who according to Megalibrarygirl meets Wikipedia's CREATIVE Notability guidelines) redirecting not even to an article about their work, but to an article about a reactionary media frenzy surrounding their work. For the record, I agree with Bus Stop in all but the title of the proposed merged article, which I continue to believe should be the artist's name, given her other notable work (including a Creative Capital grant, a performance at the Tate Modern, and a solo exhibition at Artspace, New Haven. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that she's certainly notable. She's a performance artist who has multiple critical writing on her work. Sorry I missed the AfD. I would have weighed in there, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Vera Syuzhet—I would be OK with the title of the merged article being the artist's name. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New sources

New sources are available on the artist. I hope this can put to bed the issue of notability. I attempted to add these to the article, but would appreciate a more advanced Wikipedia editor assisting me in cleaning up the refs:

• Artforum interview
• Mousse magazine feature article and exhibition review (behind a paywall)

Given these new sources, which focus on Shvarts's career trajectory as an artist, and which are in highly respected art magazines, can we please put to bed the issue of her notability, put aside our various previous investments in the poorly named Yale student abortion art controversy article, and renew the discussion of merging the articles to a single article on the artist? –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Afd has effectively put to bed the issue of notability, but the naming of Yale student abortion art controversy is still jumping up and down on the sofa, & needs to be told firmly it is time to go upstairs. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

By all accounts it is a serious work of art. Every source acknowledges its identity as "art". The Guardian for instance writes "A Yale student has sparked an outcry with a performance art piece about abortion, but the university is failing in its mission by censoring the work "[2]. The article should not be titled Yale student abortion art controversy. What title it should be given or whether it should be merged into the Aliza Shvarts article are questions worthy of discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The number one issue is not whether or not the two articles should be merged because a semi-valid opinion has been presented that the contents of the article on the 2008 proposed performance piece would need to be condensed to fit within an article on the artist's overall life and artistic output. I tend to think that choosing to discard some material relating to the handwringing concerning that piece might be a good thing. No, the number one issue is the problematic title of the inaptly titled Yale student abortion art controversy. The subject of that article is "inducing pregnancies only to induce abortions as an artistic activity"[3]. The subject is not the "controversy" though incontrovertibly there is "controversy" present. This is a question for which we find guidance in policy. By my interpretation of WP:TITLE we are expected to find consistency across articles. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. I don't think we are at liberty to construe an article about a "performance art piece"[4] as instead an article about a controversy. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod Who is the child who needs to be scolded in this situation? And who is doing the scolding? You? By what authority? We're discussing an important piece of performance art by a notable artist (read: coverage in October and Artforum), not a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. The way art is made legible, written about, and archived is important. It's important whether Shvarts's performance is registered in what purports to be the "sum of all human knowledge" as a notable work of performance art or a scandalous controversy. You're breaking with all precedent of how controversial artworks are written about on Wikipedia in continuing to argue that the title remain as "Yale student abortion art controversy." Thinly veiled allusions to authority and disciplinary action don't help your case. –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just extending your metaphor. All I'm doing, repeatedly, is reminding you what the community has already decided, twice (and will decide again if need be). And now I'm tuning out here. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod—I think there is a far greater likelihood that from the perspective of the present time, editorial opinion would favor a title referring to the artwork. The initial change suggested by Vera Syuzhet was for a title change from "Yale student abortion art controversy" to "Aliza Shvarts". The arguments against that change invariably focussed on the notability of Aliza Shvarts. Please reexamine Requested move 14 May 2018. Just look at the first 3 responses to Vera Syuzhet's suggestion. User:Irn writes "You might want to check out the notability guidelines for what would be required for Shvarts to have her own article." User:GRuban writes "The current article content is not about Shvartz [sic] as a person, rather just about one specific performance piece". User:czar writes "If the extent of Shvartz's [sic] coverage has been for her her [sic] college thesis, then that is the context by which we cover her. If her later career has been covered by reliable, secondary sources, now would be the time to share them." Notability for Aliza Shvarts has now been established. The arguments by User:Irn, User:GRuban, and User:czar, are no longer valid arguments. Those arguments were predicated on an assumption that Aliza Shvarts is not notable. Yet here we are at the Talk page for the Aliza Shvarts article so obviously there has been a shift in perception concerning the notability of Aliza Shvarts. I hate getting into this byzantine wrangling but we should be reexamining at this time the status of the article on the artwork, importantly including a reexamination of its title. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

systems of institutional power

The sentence reads In 2017, Shvarts further used digital communication and mass media to engage concepts of “truthiness” and “fake news" in How Does It Feel To Be A Fiction (2017), a viral email performance that explores the various ways in which people are read as fictional along lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality by systems of institutional power. What are "systems of institutional power"? Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a better phrasing would be "within social and political structures"? Or "by institutions and states"? "by power systems such as states"? Although I don't have a problem with the current phrasing, and perhaps we could link the words "institutional power" to the Wiki article to clarify? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what "systems of institutional power" are. My solution would be to eliminate the last words of the sentence. I would reduce the sentence to In 2017, Shvarts further used digital communication and mass media to engage concepts of “truthiness” and “fake news" in How Does It Feel To Be A Fiction (2017), a viral email performance that explores the various ways in which people are read as fictional along lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Since I don't know what "systems of institutional power" are, I can't replace it with alternative wording. The first question is: What are we talking about? What is that phrase in reference to? It is my firmly-held belief that the article should be readable and understandable by any reader. Our aim in all matters should be to spell out exactly what we mean. I find "systems of institutional power" to be opaque, impenetrable, and too vague. It requires the reader to engage in too much guesswork. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "institutions and states" would be good? Or I'm also happy to just cut the second half of the sentence, as you suggest. But then the question is, who are people being read as "fictional" by? In Shvarts's piece, she refers to "states," "systems of governance," "institutional spaces," and "larger structures of power" https://www.recessart.org/wp-content/uploads/essay.html –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't quote Shvarts if doing so leaves the reader in the dark. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

no way is that image high enough quality

i feel that maybe we should try and find an image of her instead of an image of someone holding a phone recording her. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)