What I liked was watching two people who clearly know exactly what they're doing and doing it well. The lack of prompts and the easy nature of taking a familiar job at a steady pace, each knowing that the other will just get on with the next step at the right moment. Pleasant.
Why can't we question art? Do we have to roll over and accept everything uncritically?
The trouble with not being allowed to question the justification for a piece of "art" is that it means that anyone can produce anything and call it art. While in itself that isn't necessarily a problem, it causes a lot of trouble later when the artist expects public funding to be allowed to continue to play in the sandbox.
I could probably bullshit a justification for it as well as the next reader - perhaps it's to highlight the underlying enigma that is Christ's betrayal and willing self-sacrifice. Perhaps it's to demonstrate an underlying order beneath the chaos of man's freedom to choose. Who knows. That's why I asked "why"?
Or would you rather I just looked at it and smiled vaguely and said "Look at the lovely blurry colours, isn't it pretty."?
Making the lip sharper has been known about for centuries - but it's a compromise between utility and durability. Very posh non-dribbly teapots have sharp lips, but older examples are often chipped.
I wasn't suggesting denying it to women, just that when resources are short there are likely other ways to spend limited funds which would have a greater cost/benefit. If people want to pay for it themselves, that's their own affair.
While infertility must, I'm sure, be devastating, we do seem to be getting the response out of proportion. I wouldn't go so far as to say the resources are "wasted", but from where I'm standing any reasonable cost-benefit analysis would suggest better ways of spending limited resources.
In countries where you pay for your own medicine, then of course, it's up to you. The rest of the world however has socialised medicine and to expect it within such a system doesn't seem right. Of course, you can always step outside State provided medicine and go private - something that the anti public-healthcare lobby in the States seems to ignore at every turn.
The trouble with not being allowed to question the justification for a piece of "art" is that it means that anyone can produce anything and call it art. While in itself that isn't necessarily a problem, it causes a lot of trouble later when the artist expects public funding to be allowed to continue to play in the sandbox.
I could probably bullshit a justification for it as well as the next reader - perhaps it's to highlight the underlying enigma that is Christ's betrayal and willing self-sacrifice. Perhaps it's to demonstrate an underlying order beneath the chaos of man's freedom to choose. Who knows. That's why I asked "why"?
Or would you rather I just looked at it and smiled vaguely and said "Look at the lovely blurry colours, isn't it pretty."?
http://www.driving-test-success.com/uk-road-signs.htm
And what about the cases which have already been dealt with?
In countries where you pay for your own medicine, then of course, it's up to you. The rest of the world however has socialised medicine and to expect it within such a system doesn't seem right. Of course, you can always step outside State provided medicine and go private - something that the anti public-healthcare lobby in the States seems to ignore at every turn.