i agree on the trash/art analogy.
it's not so much a matter of whether or not it is art for me, as whether or not it is "interesting" art.
it really isn't in my opinion.
pretty standard college crap jacked up with a budget somewhere.
nothing new here.
piss christ was new only by context. yes, it too can fall under the wide umbrella of art.
was it interesting?
i suppose that is relative. i saw it on display once. it is a very large image.
of course i knew what i was looking at, so that gave it a bit of gravity, but it really wasnt anything special either by any means. big, red, well shot and printed peice of luxurious garbage. i didn't care for it. but i remember thinking. how do i really know that it's piss anyway?
all it did was open a big ol box of none so sophisticated taxpayers, which ultimately helped him alot more than it ever harmed him.
it never would have made the papers had it not been publicly funded.
as you know, i am not for government grants for individual artists.
