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

[Metaphor]

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

You're not sure why government funding of the arts is a political issue?

But my comment is.......


Fascinating. Modern Art has been pushing the boundaries and causing shocks for at least a hundred years.

Do you think the Australian taxpayer should be paying for it?

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 29646

Duchamp's more famous piece.

Did a government commission Duchamp to create this?

 

[Metaphor]

So, Metaphor is forced to confront his feelings about women, reproduction, taxes, public art programs, and a girl's icky secret private no-no place, all at once. Sounds like the artist is a success.

What do you imagine my feelings about those subjects to be, and why do you believe the Australian taxpayer should pay to be lectured ("confronted") about it?

If only the post office was as effective in reaching THEIR goals.

Unlike, say, Trump's official presidential portrait? A Government Publishing Office photo, close-up, with his teeth, hair, spray tan on display. Nothing shocking there. Old fat white guy in a suit. Whatever your feelings on Trump are, this portrayal neither adds to nor subtracts from them. And the taxpayers support it, too. About as confrontational as the weather map.

Whataboutism.

 

[Metaphor]

A few months ago I pondered whether Australia should sell its Jackson Pollock. I'm now convinced Australia should hold on to it forever, lest there is any chance the proceeds of such a sale were to fund more "art" like Ms. Jenkins'.

So you think Jackson Pollock's 'Blue Poles' is 'art'?

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

 

[Metaphor]

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

But my comment is.......

Fascinating. Modern Art has been pushing the boundaries and causing shocks for at least a hundred years.

Because he thinks it should be a political issue, obviously. No government should fund any art unless Metaphor personally finds that art meaningful.

How is government policy and spending not a political issue?

 

[Metaphor]

@ruby sparks, what are your posts about? Are these examples of artworks you admire and you think it would be fine for your government to fund? Were they funded by your government?

 

[Metaphor]

So, Metaphor is forced to confront his feelings about women, reproduction, taxes, public art programs, and a girl's icky secret private no-no place, all at once. Sounds like the artist is a success.
If only the post office was as effective in reaching THEIR goals.

Yeah, but since the artist is a woman, her goals are icky.

Do you think the Australian taxpayer gets value from this particular performance piece?

 

[Metaphor]

Artists are people too, Loren.

So what?

 

[laughing dog]

So, Metaphor is forced to confront his feelings about women, reproduction, taxes, public art programs, and a girl's icky secret private no-no place, all at once. Sounds like the artist is a success.
If only the post office was as effective in reaching THEIR goals.

Yeah, but since the artist is a woman, her goals are icky.

Do you think the Australian taxpayer gets value from this particular performance piece?

Yes. Do you think your aesthetic values should be the standard for Australian gov't decision-making?

 

[Politesse]

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

But my comment is.......

Fascinating. Modern Art has been pushing the boundaries and causing shocks for at least a hundred years.

Because he thinks it should be a political issue, obviously. No government should fund any art unless Metaphor personally finds that art meaningful.

How is government policy and spending not a political issue?

It is, indeed, a political issue. A stupid one.

 

[ruby sparks]

A few months ago I pondered whether Australia should sell its Jackson Pollock. I'm now convinced Australia should hold on to it forever, lest there is any chance the proceeds of such a sale were to fund more "art" like Ms. Jenkins'.

So you think Jackson Pollock's 'Blue Poles' is 'art'?

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

Because the value of art is measured in dollars.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

But my comment is.......

Fascinating. Modern Art has been pushing the boundaries and causing shocks for at least a hundred years.

So what? That doesn't mean it's worth government subsidy.

Sure it is.
Govt subsidies are different from patronage. They aren't commissioning a piece. They are encouraging art in general. Without subsidies, the only art we'd ever see is stuff that's commercial, and to the tastes of the greatest numbers of the market.
Saying, "go, express. Maybe we'll like it, maybe not," encourages a very important need for art.
If nothing else, maybe you won't like this, but someone'll be inspired with, 'hell, i can do better than that!' And they'll come up with something you'll think worth the money.
But if there's no art but what can be sold on black velvet, you'll never see anything better than black velvet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

Because the value of art is measured in dollars.

And utility. Grandma searched all over for a landscape that matched her gold sofa bed that dominated the living room.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

Because the value of art is measured in dollars.

And utility. Grandma searched all over for a landscape that matched her gold sofa bed that dominated the living room.

She probably paid more for it than anyone ever paid Van Gogh for any of his.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think the Australian taxpayer gets value from this particular performance piece?

Yes. Do you think your aesthetic values should be the standard for Australian gov't decision-making?

I believe the Australian public, whose money is being spent, should be the standard for Australian gov't decision-making, and I don't think this would pass the pub test.

 

[Metaphor]

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

Because the value of art is measured in dollars.

It certainly is. That's why art is bought and sold, because individual pieces have value.

Popular appeal is a virtue, not a sin.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not only is it art, it is a triumph of art. That's why Pollock's piece is worth north of US$200m, and this 'piece' has negative net value.

Because the value of art is measured in dollars.

It certainly is. That's why art is bought and sold....

I see. Well that’s certainly an....interesting... opinion. I’m guessing you’re a bit of an art expert.

 

[Metaphor]

It certainly is. That's why art is bought and sold....

I see. Well that’s certainly an....interesting... opinion. I’m guessing you’re a bit of an art expert.

I'm guessing you haven't engaged in good faith with this topic at all.

First, you question why this is political, as if public policy and public spending could be anything other than political. But what you really mean is "this isn't important enough to me to consider worthy of my time or discussion, so I'm going to call the OP a category error".

Then, you post a series of pictures of art pieces that I imagine you think are comparable to the performance art in the OP. What's the point of those posts? Were the art pieces commissioned by taxpayers? Do you find them to be of high aesthetic merit?

Third, your jab that I'm an 'art expert' is beside the point. I have a brain and I make judgments about art. I also make judgments about public policy.

 

[Trausti]

Great art is paid for by private patrons. Garbage art requires theft of the public funds.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you think the Australian taxpayer gets value from this particular performance piece?

Yes. Do you think your aesthetic values should be the standard for Australian gov't decision-making?

I believe the Australian public, whose money is being spent, should be the standard for Australian gov't decision-making, and I don't think this would pass the pub test.

I am not familiar with Australia, but in the USA, a pub test would not represent a good faith random sample of US taxpayers.