Performace art or waste of taxpayers money?

[Nephythys]

graphic- nudity and dead animal

What does the LoT crew say to such things?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, my first observation is this paragraph (emphasis mine)

Miss O'Reilly's fee for the performance is thought to have been drawn from £30,000 given to the gallery by the Arts Council England.

So the "at taxpayers' expense" lead-in is an assumption, not fact. Nice bit of sensationalism there.

As for the merit...never an easy question to answer. In general, I'm in favor of an open threshold. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's not art. And I've got no problem with my tax presumed tax money (were I living in Ireland) going to art I don't like as long as it's going to art.

[Alex]

I'm not a big supporter of public funding of art. So I don't see why the two parts of the question posted by the thread title are mutually exclusive.

[Not Afraid]

I pulled out the same quote as Greg did. Give me facts as I'll comment.

As far as the piece goes, I would have do actually see it or read an intelligently writen essay on the piece, neither of which are available to me here.

[Capt Jack]

Im just sort of surprised PETA didnt embrace it as a symbolic protest of some sort. "eat meat and youre bedding down with a dead animal...in your colon" sorta thing.

but Im hard pressed to view it as art in any form.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The gov't already funds many things that I don't agree with. Such is the art of elected representation.

[Nephythys]

...and this is the Irish gov't.....

[lashbear]

• Let the artist perform the piece.
• Let the artist (or a benefactor) pay for the cost (not the taxpayers) Maybe the gallery can raise money for the show from sales of pork rinds, barf bags and binoculars ?
• As she performs her piece, let the artist remember just how many starving people one pig can feed. There's a lot of good nutrition rotting away there.
• As far as PETA goes, the animal was obtained from a slaughterhouse, and was destined to be killed, but I do think the fact that it's not being used for anything productive is a waste. No, I don't find this sort of art productive (or entertaining.)
• When viewing a naked woman, 10 minutes is a bit too much time per turn. Your average guy will have finished his game of "Pocket Billiards" in 3 minutes or less.
• She has pierced nipples. That explains everything.

[€uroMeinke]

Well, I know I'm in the minority here -but once upon a time I actually was a founding member of a political action committee based on supporting the NEA 4 and by extension public funding for the arts. I still believe arts funding is a good thing and I hate that since that day many museums have passed on more controversial fare, since just about all of them get some sort of government subsidy.

The high point of this experience was confronting our local congressman one Halloween night as he returned home from an overlong budget session. And of course all the cool artisits and litteratti we got to hang out with during the whole thing.

The low point was the political hack sent in to leverage our ability to "sway" the election creating news and events to trash the imcumbant. I hear one of them interviewed every now and then on NPR and my stomach lurches.

Perhaps it would be best if no public funding were required, but I'll admit that when I see some of the other crap my tax dollars pay for, I'd at least to have my piece of pie.

I think the effect has caused artisits and art institutes to self censor themselves. And I see the same thing happening again with the FCC. KCRW dumped my favorite commentator for saying "Fvck" on the air - what a waste

[Kevy Baby]

I like her boobs