tandu

Yes, there are herbal abortifacients. There are also herbal spermicides that inhibit contraception.

Inhibit contraception?

Oops! Thanks for the correction. My mind was on vacation and my finger's were workin' overtime.

yikes. If only I could get pregnant that easily. How many times could she do it in 9 months? I mean, it takes a couple weeks past ovulation to know for sure anyway... so it could all just be menstrual blood.

Abortifacient herbs include:

Angelica/Dong Quai a uterine stimulant
Black Cohosh to help the cervix open
Cotton Root Bark Interferes with progesterone
Pennyroyal One of the more toxic choices
Tansy probably the most toxic herb of the bunch; lengthy history as a herbal abortifacient.
Vitamin C, probably the least toxic and most effective choice: interferes with progesterone

The other one... just... ew. But the article itself is fun.

I've heard that, in Roman times there was a plant that could be used to induce abortion. It was so effective that the plant's extinct. And an early-period Christian apothocary tried them too.

But I agree that neither of those are really art, nor do I consider "performance art" to actually be art.

The first one sounds like BS. It pings the nonsense meter, since like nidea mentioned, it's not tha easy to conceive and doesn't mention a specific number. Not that one couldn't save particularly heavy menstral flows and claim that it is the product of an herbal abortion. At that point, it would look the same.

The second one ignores the CONSENT issue. Sure, it is an important life lesson that you should actually read a contract and get the details, but still not a kind way to learn it. Clearly that kid didn't give his informed consent. If he had, would it be art? Eh. It wouldn't be much of a story.

Yeah, if the volunteer hadn't complained after the fact, there would be no story. A story about "some people did some wacky art with shit" would fade out pretty fast.

(that was me)

Isn't that "Art with a captial A" you're talking about? Thought it funny you decided to leave it lowercase while quoting it. ;-)

Eh, art like that in both of those stories has been going on for decades. There was a guy (can't recall his name at the moment) in the 80's (I believe) who had himself crucified on the back of a vw bug and was driven around San Francisco. He, however, was doing it for the shock value. I don't know if I would call either of these pieces/performances 'idiotic', but I definitely would call them 'bad ideas'.

Idiocy:

"Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed).

It does not matter that 'art like that in both of these stories has been going on for decades." It's bad judgment, it's folly, and it's stupid. It does nothing to raise discourse or even challenge the human condition. It's just dumb.

The guy on the back of the VW bug is a little different. He was doing it for shock value, and also he only affected himself (possibly the driver). Both of these required the participation of others in acts which many folks would find distasteful, and not just as observers.

Then I bet you'd love the story about the 'performance' artist who recently tied up a dog in a gallery and starved it to death... claiming it as his art. Best part? The gallery supports it and he's planning on doing it again. I think 'idiot' would be a compliment to this a-hole.

Calling this man an idiot is an insult to the idiot community.

That's an awesome way to challenge the perception of art as a 'spectator' experience. Clearly, the intent of this provocative piece is to encourage audience involvement in the creative process.
...
Like feeding the 'artist' to the dog.