First, I will have made no claim to originality, though I will guarantee that while mildly derivative, it would have it's own unique merits as a work.
A thing might be unoriginal but still not plagiarism. More importantly, would it have occurred to you (if you had the hardware, that is) to consider "getting knocked up" and using the event as a performance of art were it not for the precedent set by this artist? It is quite a unique concept, as far as I know. If the idea came to you because of this specific artist, and would probably not have occurred to you otherwise, then we might safely say that you copied the work. I suppose you could vary the details of the execution, but the "artiness" of this work, in my view, is not constituted so much by execution as it is by conception, intention, and social impact. I suppose you could do the same thing with a different intention and wind up with satire.
Second, he clearly does believe that the government, in whatever capacity that they fund "art", ought not fund this 'installation'.
I don't know Metaphor, but it's possible he doesn't think any art should be funded by tax dollars. I am uncomfortable with (while not opposed to) art being supported by taxes, because I have little trust in the people charged with the task of deciding which works ought to be publicly funded. I don't care for the idea of a genius living in obscurity while some mediocre (or worse) charlatan lives high on the taxpayer's dime. I think patronage is a good tradition. Even if a patron chooses to fund the work of a moron, it's the patron's money.
If Metaphor is okay with symphony orchestras, auditoriums for other stage artists, museums, or various other venues for art, being paid for in part by taxes, then there might be a lack of consistency in him lodging a complaint about the performance in question being funded by taxes, only because (as he has not contradicted) art is subjective, and people value it vastly differently. He would not be out of bounds at all were he to complain about the work itself, though, and deride it to his heart's content. One person's right to consume and value something does not get in the way of another person's right to ignore it and hold it in contempt.
Third, while we all have a right to decide something IS art, nobody has the power to decide for everyone else what is not art. If you write something and call it a poem, I have grounds to say 'that's a pretty shitty poem [in my estimation]', or even ask 'by what metric is that a poem,' but I have no grounds to say 'that is not a poem' other than by what metric you give me, if you give me any.
I think I agree with you. I believe that whether something is or isn't art (plastic, poetry, performance, whatever) is decided by the wish and intention of the person or persons who performs or creates it. If Sally puts a rock in her mouth, spits it into the catbox, rolls it around, takes it out and places it on top of a piece of construction paper and calls that "art", then art is what it is. The only point of contention then is whether it has any value (to others, since by calling it art we know it has value to Sally). What constitutes value, and how much of it, if any, there is, will be open to discussion.
Naturally, people can discuss whether something ought to be called art or not until the cows come home; but I prefer to avoid those conversations, as I think they are abortive.
