Woman to inseminate herself as 'performance art', Australian taxpayer foots the bill.

[Metaphor]

All I seem to be able to glean from all this is that Metaphor wants to censor and define what "art" is.

Then you've failed to comprehend the OP or any further posts in the thread.

I did not ask or want to censor art. Nor does the charge that I want to define art make any sense. Each person participating in this thread has implicitly defined it for themselves, and it needs to be defined to have any kind of coherent conversation about it at all.

 

[Metaphor]

If it was publicly funded or not makes no difference.

Nobody, not you, and certainly not the government, get to decide what art is and is not of merit. If money is given to an artist to produce art, the thing you get is the art you spent money on*.

Now, if anyone here wants to go flinging shit and such on the government's dime, and you are capable of producing art such that the government gives you a grant to produce your art, sure. Do that. But I doubt you have the chops to get selected in the first place.

It is an authoritarian fascist viewpoint to then gatekeep what art is an acceptable product for the money. It is controlling free speech. The government may not decide what is and is not art. Nor may Derec. Nor may Metaphor. It is not your right, or your privilege.

If you don't like artists creating art of jizz, shit, and piss, too fucking bad.

*There are exceptions that exist in the realm of commission, insofar as something may be requested as a condition for payment. But then you are paying for a specific work; what you get is a collaborative piece, which is partially your art, and you get to decide what you get. You also get to pay an assload more.

Jarhyn has decided what art is by defining it, yet he appears to think nobody can decide what art is.

He also seems to have no idea what the objection in the OP is. I did not call the project in the OP 'not art'.

 

[laughing dog]

Measures can be valid without being perfect. Per-capita GDP is a valid measure of material standard of living in a country but it is incomplete.

Less complete measures are less desirable for decision-making than more complete measures.

I do not understand your question. You cannot be mistaken about what you think you think.

Of course you can.

There are facts of the matter about roads that are not present for art. Or, perhaps in a more roundabout way, the facts of the matter about art is the value it brings to people, and only they can discern that value.

Nonsense.

 

[ruby sparks]

....as I think they are abortive.

Ok I'll share that one with you 50/50. All I can say is that it's going to make the insemination piece and the menstruation knitting seem in very good taste by comparison.

Pun was not intended. Didn't even occur to me!

You naturally creative types. You don't even know when you're being geniuses.

But if you insist, ok, 75/25 to me.

I'm thinking we try to get Cameron Diaz interested. I hear she's short of work lately. Plus, popular appeal is a virtue, not a $in.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure what this is doing in 'politics'.

You do not think allocation of public funds is a political issue? If that's not a political issue, I wonder what would be.

Aw c'mon. You're not falling for the 'it wasn't the word patriarchy that triggered me this time' schtick, are you?

 

[ruby sparks]

And not only American, of course.

Indeed. Apparently a bunch of Aussies paid A$1.3 million (in 1973!) for a bit of a mess painted on the floor by two drunk blokes staggering about in their bare feet.

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

Flashback: May 4, 1979, Chicago, IL... Artist Joy Poe staged a realistic rape (with herself as 'victim') during a show opening at Artemisia Gallery.

I can't find an article directly concerning it, but there are quite a few references to it if one googles 'Joy Poe Artist rape'.

Yeah, kinda created an uproar at the time and for years afterwards.

Two thoughts:

1. Was Joy Poe's "art" publicly funded? I think that makes a huge difference. You should be able to do anything and call it art, but when you expect your activities to be funded by hard-working taxpayers (like most posters on here), there should be some standards.

2. I thought that Emma "Mattress Girl" Sulkowitz, despite being nutty and a misandrist, was at least original. I guess not.

No, the 'performance' was not publicly funded.

I was responding to the 'shocking performance art' aspect, rather than the 'publicly funded' aspect.... so nevermind; I misread the intended direction of conversation. Apologies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Less complete measures are less desirable for decision-making than more complete measures.

Of course you can.

There are facts of the matter about roads that are not present for art. Or, perhaps in a more roundabout way, the facts of the matter about art is the value it brings to people, and only they can discern that value.

Nonsense.

I recall when I was a teen and thought I was a straight boy attracted to girls...

As it is, I find plenty of value in celebrating how bold the piece that inspired the OP actually was. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. I guess Metaphor doesn't think we matter? Those are the facts of the matter.

 

[Metaphor]

As it is, I find plenty of value in celebrating how bold the piece that inspired the OP actually was. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. I guess Metaphor doesn't think we matter? Those are the facts of the matter.

You have no idea what I think matters or doesn't, because you've got me on ignore. You also can't follow the thread, because you've got me on ignore.

Nevertheless, for the people who can read this: Jarhyn is obviously mistaken about 'the facts of the matter'. The OP is about art funded by Australian taxpayers, not art in general. The OP is also not about censoring art, because I did not suggest censoring it.

 

[Metaphor]

And not only American, of course.

Indeed. Apparently a bunch of Aussies paid A$1.3 million (in 1973!) for a bit of a mess painted on the floor by two drunk blokes staggering about in their bare feet.

Are you upset about governments buying art at market value?

 

[ruby sparks]

And not only American, of course.

Indeed. Apparently a bunch of Aussies paid A$1.3 million (in 1973!) for a bit of a mess painted on the floor by two drunk blokes staggering about in their bare feet.

Are you upset about governments buying art at market value?

I wouldn't mind if they used the art, or indeed the artists, if they are merely feminist stunt-pullers, to pave roads or something useful. I assume we can agree on that at least.