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

[Metaphor]

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.

It is, of course, not a literal polling of people at a public bar. It is merely figurative language for 'ordinary Australian'.

I think if Australians were asked 'do you think public money should fund this particular performance art?', I believe the majority, probably the vast majority, would say 'no'.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

It is, of course, not a literal polling of people at a public bar. It is merely figurative language for 'ordinary Australian'.

I think if Australians were asked 'do you think public money should fund this particular performance art?', I believe the majority, probably the vast majority, would say 'no'.

Let's assume your conjecture is accurate. Why should that be the standard? Suppose the majority of Australians thought that only art created by radical feminists should be funded with public money?

 

[Metaphor]

Let's assume your conjecture is accurate. Why should that be the standard?

When public money is being spent, allegedly for public benefit, then surely the best -- and only -- way to evaluate public benefit is to measure the benefit to the public? It is done indirectly at the moment, of course, by the public voting governments in or out.

Suppose the majority of Australians thought that only art created by radical feminists should be funded with public money?

Then there would no nothing radical about the feminists, would there? They would be mainstream. And if the people thought that, then that's what they would fund.

The choices you are presenting are this:

* Scenario 1: Woman gets public funding to inseminate herself and put indirect footage of the insemination on the internet, but the majority of the public would not fund it if given the direct choice; or

* Scenario 2: Woman gets public funding to inseminate herself and put indirect footage of the insemination on the internet, but the majority of the public would fund it if given the direct choice.

Scenario 2 is more desirable between the two.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Both Michaelangelo and DaVinci were commissioned for their works by local royalty figures and the church, i.e. the government i.e. public funds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Artists are people too, Loren.

I have no problem with the existence of such art. I have a problem with public money for "art" that is basically a message rather than something that people want to look at.

 

[skepticalbip]

As a thought. The Australian government is funding a woman inseminating herself as performance art. Would, or should, they also fund as performance art the man supplying the sperm by masturbating into the cup? Maybe some Australian male performance artist should apply for such a grant. The first performance by the female artist is only half the story. Surely Australian art lovers would want to see the whole story.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's assume your conjecture is accurate. Why should that be the standard?

When public money is being spent, allegedly for public benefit, then surely the best -- and only -- way to evaluate public benefit is to measure the benefit to the public? It is done indirectly at the moment, of course, by the public voting governments in or out.

First, the question would be how to measure the benefit to the public. Second, if it is done indirectly at the moment, it appears the public is content.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's assume your conjecture is accurate. Why should that be the standard?

When public money is being spent, allegedly for public benefit, then surely the best -- and only -- way to evaluate public benefit is to measure the benefit to the public? It is done indirectly at the moment, of course, by the public voting governments in or out.

First, the question would be how to measure the benefit to the public. Second, if it is done indirectly at the moment, it appears the public is content.

Asking the public if it wants to fund a woman inseminating herself as performance art is a measure of the public benefit of that art.

As I've already conjectured, I believe that, if given the choice, I would say with certainty the majority, and I would say with confidence the vast majority, of the Australian public would not choose to fund this particular project. Certainly I do not trust or respect the gatekeeper 'expertise' of vitalstatistix, a discriminatory institution that nakedly advertises its self-interest. Art as bad as that funded by vitalstatistix can certainly find its public without the aid of government largesse, and the people who wish to consume such 'art' can fund it. And if it can't find its public without government largesse, then that art does not deserve to be funded in the first place. One should not be compensated for producing something valueless.

Second, ignorance is not contentedness. I believe if decisions like these were more widely known, public opposition would be more widely expressed. Perhaps a spotlight on the kind of art that is being produced by government grants will compel the government to exercise greater prudence with other people's money.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Both Michaelangelo and DaVinci were commissioned for their works by local royalty figures and the church, i.e. the government i.e. public funds.

It's a shame the South Australian government doesn't quite have the discernment in managing the public purse as those historical agents, mmm?

I mean, I don't think Australia has produced a Michaelangelo or a da Vinci to be picked, but then, perhaps I am simply out of touch in measuring the value, the staggering aesthetic, game-changing genius, of knitting wool out of one's vagina.

 

[bilby]

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.

It is, of course, not a literal polling of people at a public bar. It is merely figurative language for 'ordinary Australian'.

I think if Australians were asked 'do you think public money should fund this particular performance art?', I believe the majority, probably the vast majority, would say 'no'.

If Australians were asked 'do you think public money should fund the resurfacing of the Bruce Highway between North Lakes and Morayfield?', I believe the majority, probably the vast majority, would say 'no''.

But highways need to be maintained, and the fact that people in Perth don't want to pay for highways in Queensland that they will likely never see, much less use, is irrelevant to the question.

If you ask 'do you think public money should fund highway maintenance?'; or 'do you think public money should fund the arts?' then the majority answer would be 'yes'. That the majority would not support funding for any given specific spending line item is just a demonstration of the need for a civil service to make such decisions based on criteria other than pure popularity.

Art is intended to evoke an emotional response. As such, it is very clear that (to you, at least) the activity described in your OP is very definitely art. That you (or even the vast majority of Australians) don't like this instance of it is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it should be funded - just as is the case with highway maintenance projects. There are government employees whose entire job is to decide which art (and which sections of highway) should get funding. You are assuredly not more qualified than those people to make such decisions - even if your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome leads you to feel strongly that you must be.

 

[Metaphor]

If Australians were asked 'do you think public money should fund the resurfacing of the Bruce Highway between North Lakes and Morayfield?', I believe the majority, probably the vast majority, would say 'no''.

But highways need to be maintained, and the fact that people in Perth don't want to pay for highways in Queensland that they will likely never see, much less use, is irrelevant to the question.

Yes, highways need to be maintained, and infrastructure need can be rated objectively. There are facts of the matter about how many cars use a highway and how degraded each surface is.

If you ask 'do you think public money should fund highway maintenance?'; or 'do you think public money should fund the arts?' then the majority answer would be 'yes'.

Are you sure about the latter? And, in particular, do you think such a vague question actually captures people's feelings about the current arrangements funding the arts?

That the majority would not support funding for any given specific spending line item is just a demonstration of the need for a civil service to make such decisions based on criteria other than pure popularity.

vitalstatistix is not the civil service. It is a body that was given a grant. It is not accountable to the public but it uses public money.

Art is intended to evoke an emotional response. As such, it is very clear that (to you, at least) the activity described in your OP is very definitely art.

What a bizarre line of argument. That someone intends to evoke an emotional response and manages to provoke one does not mean that what that person did was 'art'. Intending to evoke an emotional response is not sufficient to make something art. You attempting to hurt my feelings by suggesting I have Dunning-Kruger syndrome, for example, is not art.

But, even if it were sufficient to make something 'art', the absolute lack of discernment in your statement is worrying. It's as if you don't think there is good art and bad art. Earlier ZiprHead implicitly defended the use of public funds by evoking examples of good art. Even if I thought public funding of 'the arts' was desirable or necessary, I would not think public funding of bad art was desirable or necessary, any more than I think public funding of bad infrastructure is necessary.

That you (or even the vast majority of Australians) don't like this instance of it is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it should be funded - just as is the case with highway maintenance projects. There are government employees whose entire job is to decide which art (and which sections of highway) should get funding. You are assuredly not more qualified than those people to make such decisions - even if your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome leads you to feel strongly that you must be.

I am not more qualified to make judgments about the relative need for highway maintenance projects than the people who make them (though those too are far from perfect).

But the public funding of art is certainly a different beast. And the government does not give grants to private companies to pick and choose what highways will be maintained.

And the value of art is what people value it at, not what government-dependent gatekeepers determine it shall be. I am people, believe it or not, bilby. The four hardwhite Anglos that comprise the staff of vitalstatistix are people too. But I wouldn't give them money to buy art for my living room. Your mileage may vary.

 

[bilby]

Yes, highways need to be maintained, and infrastructure need can be rated objectively. There are facts of the matter about how many cars use a highway and how degraded each surface is.



Are you sure about the latter? And, in particular, do you think such a vague question actually captures people's feelings about the current arrangements funding the arts?

That the majority would not support funding for any given specific spending line item is just a demonstration of the need for a civil service to make such decisions based on criteria other than pure popularity.

vitalstatistix is not the civil service. It is a body that was given a grant. It is not accountable to the public but it uses public money.

Art is intended to evoke an emotional response. As such, it is very clear that (to you, at least) the activity described in your OP is very definitely art.

What a bizarre line of argument. That someone intends to evoke an emotional response and manages to provoke one does not mean that what that person did was 'art'.

Yes, it really does.

Intending to evoke an emotional response is not sufficient to make something art. You attempting to hurt my feelings by suggesting I have Dunning-Kruger syndrome, for example, is not art.

Yes, it really is.

But, even if it were sufficient to make something 'art', the absolute lack of discernment in your statement is worrying. It's as if you don't think there is good art and bad art. Earlier ZiprHead implicitly defended the use of public funds by evoking examples of good art. Even if I thought public funding of 'the arts' was desirable or necessary, I would not think public funding of bad art was desirable or necessary, any more than I think public funding of bad infrastructure is necessary.

And yet you labour under the delusion that you are qualified to tell the difference - but only in one of the two fields in which you are unqualified.

That you (or even the vast majority of Australians) don't like this instance of it is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it should be funded - just as is the case with highway maintenance projects. There are government employees whose entire job is to decide which art (and which sections of highway) should get funding. You are assuredly not more qualified than those people to make such decisions - even if your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome leads you to feel strongly that you must be.

I am not more qualified to make judgments about the relative need for highway maintenance projects than the people who make them (though those too are far from perfect).

But the public funding of art is certainly a different beast. And the government does not give grants to private companies to pick and choose what highways will be maintained.

You might want to google "Transurban Group".

And the value of art is what people value it at, not what government-dependent gatekeepers determine it shall be. I am people, believe it or not, bilby. The four hardwhite Anglos that comprise the staff of vitalstatistix are people too. But I wouldn't give them money to buy art for my living room. Your mileage may vary.

Yup, I picked it. You honestly think that your opinion on what art should be funded is as good as the opinions of people who make those decisions for a living.

You are wrong, and I have no expectation of being able to persuade you to understand that fact. So my work here is done - interested third parties are alerted to your DKS, and there's exactly zero point in further discussion with you.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, highways need to be maintained, and infrastructure need can be rated objectively. There are facts of the matter about how many cars use a highway and how degraded each surface is.



Are you sure about the latter? And, in particular, do you think such a vague question actually captures people's feelings about the current arrangements funding the arts?



vitalstatistix is not the civil service. It is a body that was given a grant. It is not accountable to the public but it uses public money.



What a bizarre line of argument. That someone intends to evoke an emotional response and manages to provoke one does not mean that what that person did was 'art'.

Yes, it really does.

Intending to evoke an emotional response is not sufficient to make something art. You attempting to hurt my feelings by suggesting I have Dunning-Kruger syndrome, for example, is not art.

Yes, it really is.

But, even if it were sufficient to make something 'art', the absolute lack of discernment in your statement is worrying. It's as if you don't think there is good art and bad art. Earlier ZiprHead implicitly defended the use of public funds by evoking examples of good art. Even if I thought public funding of 'the arts' was desirable or necessary, I would not think public funding of bad art was desirable or necessary, any more than I think public funding of bad infrastructure is necessary.

And yet you labour under the delusion that you are qualified to tell the difference - but only in one of the two fields in which you are unqualified.

That you (or even the vast majority of Australians) don't like this instance of it is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it should be funded - just as is the case with highway maintenance projects. There are government employees whose entire job is to decide which art (and which sections of highway) should get funding. You are assuredly not more qualified than those people to make such decisions - even if your Dunning-Kruger Syndrome leads you to feel strongly that you must be.

I am not more qualified to make judgments about the relative need for highway maintenance projects than the people who make them (though those too are far from perfect).

But the public funding of art is certainly a different beast. And the government does not give grants to private companies to pick and choose what highways will be maintained.

You might want to google "Transurban Group".

And the value of art is what people value it at, not what government-dependent gatekeepers determine it shall be. I am people, believe it or not, bilby. The four hardwhite Anglos that comprise the staff of vitalstatistix are people too. But I wouldn't give them money to buy art for my living room. Your mileage may vary.

Yup, I picked it. You honestly think that your opinion on what art should be funded is as good as the opinions of people who make those decisions for a living.

You are wrong, and I have no expectation of being able to persuade you to understand that fact. So my work here is done - interested third parties are alerted to your DKS, and there's exactly zero point in further discussion with you.

Bye.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do you find them to be of high aesthetic merit?

Hm. Let's use your standard. For example, a mere 1964 replica of Duchamp's 1917 original urinal piece sold for $1.7 million in 1999. And Mark Quinn's blood-filled head piece went for £1.5 million. Even a photo of a plastic crucifix in piss is worth $150,000.00. One of Andy Warhol's urine oxidations went for $3.4 million in 2015. So that's clearly top art that is. You can literally count up how top it is. I'm surprised a person as artistically discerning as you didn't realise.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you find them to be of high aesthetic merit?

Hm. Let's use your standard.

I asked if you found them of high merit. Are you incapable of knowing your own taste?

For example, a mere 1964 replica of Duchamp's 1917 original urinal piece sold for $1.7 million in 1999. And Mark Quinn's blood-filled head piece went for £1.5 million. Even a photo of a plastic crucifix in piss is worth $150,000.00. One of Andy Warhol's urine oxidations went for $3.4 million in 2015. So that's clearly top art that is. You can literally count up how top it is. I'm surprised a person as artistically discerning as you didn't realise.

I notice you dishonestly left out the preceding sentences in my paragraph, which were:

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?

I asked: were the art pieces commissioned by taxpayers? You did not answer.

I asked: do you find them to be of high merit? You did not answer.

I ask: do you think that 'Immaculate' - the proposed performance art in question - will sell for $1.7m, or £1.5 million?

 

[laughing dog]

Asking[/I] the public if it wants to fund a woman inseminating herself as performance art is a measure of the public benefit of that art.

But is it a valid and complete measure of the public benefit? I think not. The fact this work might make people think about something gives it some value. The fact this work may get people thinking about something they ordinarily would not think about gives it some value. Frankly, the fact it upsets reactionaries gives it some value. None of which is necessarily captured by your measure.

Then there is question of whether adherence to strict democratic principles is a good idea. Using your standard, does it make sense for a gov't to build a roadway that stops at a certain township and then starts up again 20 kilometers away because the general public does not like the residents of that township?

Second, ignorance is not contentedness. I believe if decisions like these were more widely known, public opposition would be more widely expressed. Perhaps a spotlight on the kind of art that is being produced by government grants will compel the government to exercise greater prudence with other people's money.

You don't know that the public is ignorant of this art.

 

[ruby sparks]

I asked if you found them of high merit. Are you incapable of knowing your own taste?

Why did you want to know? Are we doing personal taste now?

I ask: do you think that 'Immaculate' - the proposed performance art in question - will sell for $1.7m, or £1.5 million?

I don't think anyone necessarily knows what someone might pay for a piece of art at the time it is produced. Van Gogh only ever sold one painting, for very little, and died penniless.

I'm confused about the standards you are using. I mean, did you know 'Blue Poles' was expensive and then thought it was great art, or what? Would you think it was great art if it only cost $500? Does the artist have to be famous? Do you rate Blue Poles because it was done by a man (well, two drunk men, to be precise). How does this work for you? Most of all, what if the art has a feminist angle? Do you then, as ever, just get automatically triggered to make a complaint? Because I couldn't help noticing, even though you left out the 'this week in feminism' prefix in the thread title for a change. The supposed objection on grounds of public funding is not that convincing really, is it?

 

[Metaphor]

But is it a valid and complete measure of the public benefit? I think not.

I don't think it is 'complete'; that would be an absurd standard to evaluate any project.

The fact this work might make people think about something gives it some value. The fact this work may get people thinking about something they ordinarily would not think about gives it some value. Frankly, the fact it upsets reactionaries gives it some value. None of which is necessarily captured by your measure.

Well, if you were asked about it, it seems that you would have taken all these things into account to decide whether public money should be spent on it. You've already said you'd value it and you've revealed some reasons why you would value it. Other people would have taken different things, things that they value, into account. So, everybody would take what they value into account.

Then there is question of whether adherence to strict democratic principles is a good idea. Using your standard, does it make sense for a gov't to build a roadway that stops at a certain township and then starts up again 20 kilometers away because the general public does not like the residents of that township?

But I didn't suggest direct democracy is desirable or practical for every government decision.

You don't know that the public is ignorant of this art.

What a strange objection. If the public is not ignorant of it, then talking about can hardly be objectionable. If the public is ignorant of it, or portions of the public, then additional sunlight will inform people. Whatever you think of democracy, I think knowing about the decisions the government has made in funding public art should be transparent to the public who funded it.

 

[Metaphor]

Why did you want to know? Are we doing personal taste now?

I told you why I wanted to know: to find out why you posted the pieces that you did? Over several posts, with no additional justification. What was the relevance? I think I was pretty clear in what I asked you, twice. Were they commissioned by taxpayers (you've dodged this question: the answer is no, they were not). Do you think they have aesthetic value? (You've dodged this question, but I don't know the answer to it because I'm not a mind reader).

I don't think anyone necessarily knows what someone might pay for a piece of art at the time it is produced. Van Gogh only ever sold one painting, for very little, and died penniless.

That's true. But I wasn't asking for some kind of exact value. For example, do you think it 'Immaculate' is worth more than $1.7m or less than $1.7m? If the artist had asked for $1.7m to perform it, do you think it would be a prudent use of taxpayer money to fund it?

I'm confused about the standards you are using. I mean, did you know 'Blue Poles' was expensive and then thought it was great art, or what?

No, in year six I had no idea how much Australia had paid for it. Certainly I was influenced in my understanding of its importance by the reverence that the art gallery had for it. When I saw it again, many years later, I looked up its history on the internet - and discovered the jaw-dropping valuation.

Would you think it was great art if it only cost $500? Does the artist have to be famous? Do you rate Blue Poles because it was done by a man (well, two drunk men, to be precise).

You appear to be confused. I don't judge art by the personal characteristics of the artist. Polanski raped a 13 year old girl and fled to Europe to evade justice, but that doesn't mean Rosemary's Baby and Repulsion are not great art.

How does this work for you? Most of all, what if the art has a feminist angle? Do you then, as ever, just get automatically triggered to make a complaint?

What feminist art do you believe I should be triggered by? It seems to me I must have consumed a lot of feminist art in my life and not been triggered by it. Are you suggesting good feminist art should trigger me? I'd be pleased for you to name some good feminist art so I can tell you whether I've been triggered by it.

Because I couldn't help noticing, even though you left out the 'this week in feminism' prefix in the thread title for a change. The supposed objection on grounds of public funding is not that convincing really, is it?

But that's the entire basis of the objection. If this performance art had been funded by the people watching it, or by voluntary collection from people who had handed over their money, I might have chuckled at how bad it was and made fun of it, but I would hardly object to it existing. I don't object to people handing over money to watch two men beat the shit out of each other, which I find boring and repulsive (I guess bilby would call boxing 'art', as well). But I don't want the government to fund two men beating the shit out of each other.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think it is 'complete'; that would be an absurd standard to evaluate any project.

Expecting a measure to be valid (i.e. complete) is not absurd.

Well, if you were asked about it, it seems that you would have taken all these things into account to decide whether public money should be spent on it. You've already said you'd value it and you've revealed some reasons why you would value it. Other people would have taken different things, things that they value, into account. So, everybody would take what they value into account.

If people are unaware of what they value in total?

But I didn't suggest direct democracy is desirable or practical for every government decision.

So why is it desirable for art but not roads?

What a strange objection. If the public is not ignorant of it, then talking about can hardly be objectionable. If the public is ignorant of it, or portions of the public, then additional sunlight will inform people. Whatever you think of democracy, I think knowing about the decisions the government has made in funding public art should be transparent to the public who funded it.

WTF are you on about? I did not complain about sunlight or transparency.