Shock Value

When first reading the article about how Yale student Aliza Shvarts used self induced miscarriages to create a sort of art, I was sort of shocked. Number one, abortion is a very serious and debatable topic in today's society. People take strong stands on either side and using a subject like that in art can be very controversial. And the fact that she was purposely miscarrying, something that has effected many women, seems morbid and hurtful.

After reading the second article and realizing that the whole thing was a lie was also somewhat surprising. Why would she just not come out and immediately say that all of the blood and video tapes were fake, just representing something, instead of playing that they were real. I think that she was going more for the performance art aspect rather than actual display. Although she claims that she was not going for the shock value of the piece, it is kind of hard to believe that when she was lying in order to people to react in shock and disbelief.

Why is using blood in artwork controversial? Is it the fact that it comes from something that we do not associate positive things with. Why do artist continue to use it? Is it for the shock value or the way that it actually looks in the artwork?