Johnny was a homo
Kept his body clean
Moved to San Francisco
Caught a big disease
Raped by his daddy
Told he was at fault
Living life unhappy
Covering up his soul
You're living in a time of change
So many things you feel afraid
To think against the will of God
Maybe someday soon they'll realize they're wrong
Lucy was a lesbian
Never fond of the shaft
Moved in Alcapulco
Nothing goes in her hole
Lucy met Johnny
Dated in a couple
He and she got naughty
Found out that it's normal
When you're living in a time of change
So many things you feel afraid
To think against the will of God
Maybe someday soon they'll realize they're wrong
Made not Born, Made not Born, Made not Born, Made not Born, Made not Born, Made not Born
I use control
I love my wife
I have the presence to diversify
Raised a slut
A sloppy tease
Never knows who or what to believe
And so a left
Into a right
Fist shaking harder than go give a black eye
The bitch should cower
It’s been a week
I never planned to practice what I preach
All the blood has dried before you’re forced to misconstrue
And I say I'm sorry and I'll make it up to you
Buy you flowers and furs swear the abuse will never end
Then I’ll turn around and do it all again
Put you into a phylum
Let you in my asylum
Gain your trust in my promise
Kicking out your eye-socket
Make believe that it’s over
Then I dislocate your shoulder
You make me sick
It's so pathetic
Stick around and don’t regret it
I have control
I love my wife
I have the privilege to diversify
Raised a slut
A sloppy tease
Never knows who or what to believe
So a left
Into a right
Fists shaking harder then go give a black eye
A bitch and coward
It’s been a week
I never planned to practice what I preach
All the blood has dried make sure you’re forced to misconstrue
Then I tell her I'm sorry and I'll make it up to you
Buy you flowers and furs swear the abuse will never end
Then I turn around and do it all again
Watch you live in a phylum
Let you in my asylum
Gain your trust, keep my promise
Kicking out your eye-socket
Make you believe that it’s over
Then I dislocate your shoulder
Make me sick
So pathetic
You stick around you don’t regret it
Cocaine cannot kill my pain
Like a freight train through my vein
Cocaine cannot kill my pain
Whiskey got no hold on me
Left them chains in Tennessee
Whiskey got no hold on me
Don't come knockin' on my door
Even that won't work no more
Don't come knockin' on my door
Heroin is the only thing
The only gift the darkness brings
Heroin is the only thing
Guess you'd best leave me alone
At least until these blues have gone
Guess you'd best leave me alone
Comments Wells Tao Wells Tao my mother always said never invite everyone to the party then leave. Never. LikeShow more reactions · Reply · a few seconds ago
Listening to Tao Wells’ stone-cold crazy
performance on Radio New Zealand’s The Panel this afternoon (audio,
starts at about 19:30) it’s pretty clear that the whole thing is simply a
continuation of The Beneficiary’s Office, his performance art project.
I’m not sure what the endgame is, beyond driving publicity for Wells
and ‘The Wells Group’, the self-styled PR agency running The
Beneficiary’s Office. But fundamentally this is the only explanation for
the character who fronted The Panel. The studied eccentricity of his
characterisation and rhetoric — the Leninesque styling and cheap,
ill-fitting suit; the suggestion that he might replace Paul Henry on Breakfast, using the scandal du jour
as a springboard for publicity; the incoherent, aggressive, entitled,
self-indulgent indignant victimhood of his media presence — he is
exploiting the fourth wall illusion, the audience’s naïve impression
that they’re separate from the performance; that the show stops at the
proscenium arch. To do so Wells is reading from the big book of Glenn
Beck and Sarah Palin. His project is a little bit of inchoate Tea Party
wingnuttery turned back on an issue so close to the wingnuts’ hearts
that they can’t see the mockery in it. No matter that his actual
argument doesn’t bear the slightest bit of rational scrutiny and is all
but completely obscured by his outrageous delivery — this isn’t the
point. The point is to suck people in and involve them in the
performance by lighting the flame of their hatred. To make them attack
the tar-baby. As Palin’s own idol Ann Coulter said, paraphrasing Joseph
Göbbels and George Orwell in her diatribe Slander:
“Any statement whatever, no matter how stupid, any ‘tall tale’ will be
believed once it enters into the passionate current of hatred.”
So to everyone who’s found themselves
incandescent with righteous fury, uttered slogans like “the world
doesn’t owe you a living!” or called for the disestablishment of
Creative NZ or defended Wells and his absurdist position — this includes
the media who’ve covered it from the ‘benefit scandal’ angle; obviously
WINZ, who’ve cut his benefit; and most notably David Farrar and the
KBR, whose response has been nothing shortof magnificent — you’re part of the show. You have been trolled.
So as far as that goes, well done, Tao Wells.
L
So, you don’t think its worth taking WINZ to task for political persecution then?
If he jumps through their hoops, what business is it of theirs what views about work he expresses?
Love it. He just talks in circles! I’ve met Tao a few
times and the impression I got is he’s a dedicated, talented stirrer.
Front page news all over the country, talkbacks running wild – that’d be
a win, then!
This reminds me strongly of the McGillicuddies at their peak.
He’s espousing pretty obvious anarchist ideas. Why is work necessary?
Manual labour is made obsolete by all our lovely machines, what
happened to our goddamned leisure? And so on.
DaveW on October 18th, 2010 at 21:32
Web forum trolling turned into a performance art piece?
I love it, he’s done spectacularly well. :-)
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sibylle
Schwarz, Lew. Lew said: On KP: "Performance art" Anyone who's been
roused to anger or defence by Tao Wells of @WellsGroup: You Have Been
Trolled. http://is.gd/g6qWn […]
I/S, not really.
For one thing, I don’t believe that the system should be required to
function for egregious piss-takers, no matter how many hoops they jump
through — an absence of good faith is a legitimate reason for review in
my opinion (not knowing the policy in this area, I make no comment on
the legalities).
For another thing, you might have a point (and I’d be inclined to be
sympathetic) if there were any meaningful or meritorious political
objections being espoused here — but I simply can’t see any. I’m sure
it’s possible to construct something from it, but the whole discourse is
simply incoherent. This is the project’s only real failing, as far as I
can see.
For a third, getting riled about WINZ’ behaviour (as you have) is
buying into the performance. I don’t intend to engage with it as a
participant; I’d much rather observe it.* So from this perspective
whatever the players do is part of the show, and its outcome is its
outcome. Plenty of people other than me involved; I’ll leave it to them.
L
* Yeah, I get that there’s ironic reflexive recursion here, that
critiquing and saying I don’t want to engage with it is in fact a form
of engagement, &c.
I should also add that he appeared to have the
respect of his artistic peers, at least the ones I spoke to – i.e. he
wasn’t just a random troublemaker but someone perceived to have artistic
chops. Just impressions from brief encounters, of course, but they do
fit with the picture you draw in your post.
Lew – Excellent analysis. The best form of defence is
not to point out he is an outrageous fool but to appreciate the joke
and the success of his our “performance”.
Then quietly can all arts funding as a message to the others. The
success of his performance does not get around the fact that taxpayers
fund it. It is certainly a valid theme for privately funded art. But
my guess is that he is about to encounter the law of unintended
consequences. And there will be a mighty number of mostly struggling
artists who will unlikely be happy with him.
Keir on October 19th, 2010 at 00:53
For another thing, you might have a point
(and I’d be inclined to be sympathetic) if there were any meaningful or
meritorious political objections being espoused here — but I simply
can’t see any. I’m sure it’s possible to construct something from it,
but the whole discourse is simply incoherent. This is the project’s only
real failing, as far as I can see.
I think that the notion of meaningful/meritorious political speech as
needful in an artistic context is really unhelpful. Aesthetic acts
aren’t reducible to the political. The incoherence is important.
See Claire Bishop’s The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents.
Phil, why should this (as opposed to anything else)
result in arts funding reform? The government funds CNZ to fund art.
They sure got some here.
Keir, I accept that the incoherence is important — it’s hard to bring
the crazy without it — but by the same token, so is the fact that his
benefit has been cut. Unlike Phil, I don’t think this was an unintended
consequence — given the fact that Wells was upfront about his own
benefit, and the nature of his work, and the present political climate
arouns such matters, he’d have needed to be utterly oblivious to not
realise the likely effects. That doesn’t fit.
L
Lew – It would merely be appreciating the majesty of his performance and carrying it to the logical extreme.
We are supposed to be outraged. Well lets have a grand finale and a
bonfire of the funding applications. Now that would be truly a great
performance!
I accept that the incoherence is important — .., so is
the fact that his benefit has been cut. .., he’d have needed to be
utterly oblivious to not realise the likely effects. That doesn’t fit.
Lew – I disagree, he seems utterly oblivious to any kind of consequence or reality.
Phil, talk about a pyrrhic victory.
But no. I think this event shows that CNZ works — it funds successful and innovative and controversial art projects. That’s its mandate. Long may it continue to do so.
L
Posted on 20:24, October 18th, 2010 by 
Tags: 
Posted in 
If he jumps through their hoops, what business is it of theirs what views about work he expresses?
He’s espousing pretty obvious anarchist ideas. Why is work necessary? Manual labour is made obsolete by all our lovely machines, what happened to our goddamned leisure? And so on.
I love it, he’s done spectacularly well. :-)
For one thing, I don’t believe that the system should be required to function for egregious piss-takers, no matter how many hoops they jump through — an absence of good faith is a legitimate reason for review in my opinion (not knowing the policy in this area, I make no comment on the legalities).
For another thing, you might have a point (and I’d be inclined to be sympathetic) if there were any meaningful or meritorious political objections being espoused here — but I simply can’t see any. I’m sure it’s possible to construct something from it, but the whole discourse is simply incoherent. This is the project’s only real failing, as far as I can see.
For a third, getting riled about WINZ’ behaviour (as you have) is buying into the performance. I don’t intend to engage with it as a participant; I’d much rather observe it.* So from this perspective whatever the players do is part of the show, and its outcome is its outcome. Plenty of people other than me involved; I’ll leave it to them.
L
* Yeah, I get that there’s ironic reflexive recursion here, that critiquing and saying I don’t want to engage with it is in fact a form of engagement, &c.
L
hisour “performance”.Then quietly can all arts funding as a message to the others. The success of his performance does not get around the fact that taxpayers fund it. It is certainly a valid theme for privately funded art. But my guess is that he is about to encounter the law of unintended consequences. And there will be a mighty number of mostly struggling artists who will unlikely be happy with him.
See Claire Bishop’s The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents.
Keir, I accept that the incoherence is important — it’s hard to bring the crazy without it — but by the same token, so is the fact that his benefit has been cut. Unlike Phil, I don’t think this was an unintended consequence — given the fact that Wells was upfront about his own benefit, and the nature of his work, and the present political climate arouns such matters, he’d have needed to be utterly oblivious to not realise the likely effects. That doesn’t fit.
L
We are supposed to be outraged. Well lets have a grand finale and a bonfire of the funding applications. Now that would be truly a great performance!
Lew – I disagree, he seems utterly oblivious to any kind of consequence or reality.
But no. I think this event shows that CNZ works — it funds successful and innovative and controversial art projects. That’s its mandate. Long may it continue to do so.
L
The Happy Bene MOVIE TRAILER from Wells Group on Vimeo.