I think this thread can be referenced here, too:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ow-barker.html
This is a topic that has always interested me. How far is too far?
Personally, I'm not comfortable making this kind of distinction based simply on what is repugnant to look at.
On a personal level, I would draw the line at animal cruelty - even though I understand the implications (what the artist is trying to say about our moral blinders when it comes to the industrialization of animal slaughter), it is the
ego involved in believing that you are going to raise awareness by exposing their suffering in an unexpected and demoralizing way that gives me pause. On a practical level, I feel no better about it than I do one of our modern day human slaughterfests, such as
Saw or
Hostel, even though on an intellectual level, I understand that its purpose is not the same - it is not meant to
entertain. Not to mention, most of the people going out to art museums these days already have a pretty good handle on the cruelty and suffering that goes on in our world...it's one of the reasons we seek them out.
As for the concepts of beauty and ugliness, I make no distinction on an artistic level. Surely there are objects and ideas that are aesthetically more pleasing to gaze upon than others, but I think to acquire an appreciation of that which is 'ugly' can be equally moving and satisfying. I think art can certainly challenge us in this way - to challenge us not to turn away. I think Western society in particular could benefit greatly from this kind of exposure.