Mr. Dubost, the prosecutor from France, interviewed the witness Bachalowsky during the Nuremberg Trials.
- Mr. Dubost (French prosecutor): Could you please tell us about the tattooed skin?
- Witness Bachalowsky: Yes.
- Mr. Dubost: Please tell us what you know.
- Witness Bachalowsky: In Buchenwald, human tattooed skin was placed in Block 2. This block was called the “pathological block”.
- Mr. Dubost: Could you tell us if there was much tattooed skin in this block?
- Witness Bachalowsky: There was always human skin there. I can’t tell you exactly how much there was because there was a lot of traffic in this block. There was not only tattooed skin but also tanned human skin without tattoos.
- Mr. Dubost: Does this mean that they skinned prisoners?
- Witness Bachalowsky: They skinned prisoners, then they tanned the skin.
- Mr. Dubost: Could you give us more details about that?
- Witness Bachalowsky: I saw the SS leaving Block 2 with human skin in their arms. Some comrades who worked in this block told me the SS received orders for human skin, and that tanned skin were given to the guards and visitors. Human skin was also used to make book covers.
- Mr. Dubost: We have been told here that the former commandant, Koch, was punished for that.
- Witness Bachalowsky: I don’t know about that case, I was not in the camp at this time.
- Mr. Dubost: So, were there human tattooed and tanned skin in the camp after Koch left?
- Witness Bachalowsky: There was always skin. When the Americans liberated the camp, they still found tattooed and tanned skin…
Horror happened at Buchenwald. Some of it was photographed by the American soldiers who liberated the camp. And in the days since, Holocaust deniers such as AhmediNajad, President of Iran, have claimed they didn’t happen, and have even denied the reality of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC that happened 56 years later.
Compare this to an extended description of a horror that maybe didn’t happen, but was publicized as if it did. Or maybe it did happen. At the moment the jury is still out.
Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process. […]
Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.” […]
The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.
“I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,” Shvarts said. “I think that I’m creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.”
The display of Schvarts’ project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.
Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.
It’s important to realize that Schvartz believes that this “art project” makes a political statement. It isso hard to figure out what political statement her “art project” is making because it is so repellent and degenerate.
The purpose of doubt in Buchenwald is to demonize and re-victimize the victims of the horror. The purpose of doubt at Yale is something altogether different.
Schvarts said, once again, that “her goal was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. [link]”
She thereby put herself in a position where people suspected that she was either a sociopathic auto-abortionist or a hoax artiste and joker. Today and tomorrow her identity will be that of a monster, alternating between killer and joker. So it will continue in the future, her identity and reputation ping-ponging between killer and joker. Nobody likes a joker. Nobody likes a killer. Nobody wants to be around either. For what is a joker but a liar who tells spectacular and embarrassing lies? And what is a killer but a liar who arbitrarily claims the ultimate knowledge of whether someone else deserves to die and the right to kill?
In the future, there will always be whispers behind her back, “Is she a killer?”
And the answer will come back, “I don’t know.”