A jar of piss is not art. It is not an achievement of the human soul or a demonstration of man’s expressive capability. It takes no talent. I don’t understand how the man who pissed in a jar received tax dollars for the effort.
You did not describe the art work, only the medium. Recall if you will that the work was a photograph of a urine filled jar with a Crucifix within.
The photo of the combination was deemed art because it conveyed a message. Many considered blasphemy while others considered the message to be the ultimate in liberal dissent against Christianity.
A similar message in rebuttal would be a photo of a bearded professor drug with a chain behind a battered pickup. That also would be art and deliver an anti academicprogressiveliberal message