There is a misconception that defining such activities as "art" somehow makes them acceptable; it is a poor artist indeed who relies on the power of shock to try to get across a concept, as the shock itself generally overrides whatever the message of the work is intended to be. Trying to argue with such "artists" and their defenders on whether or not a particular work can be defined as art is beside the point - what is needed is for the prevailing opinion (amongst the critics and intellectual set, anyway) that art must somehow be controversial and difficult to understand in order to have value that should be changed.
Outrage is what these "artists" expect; indifference and ridicule would be far more effective in relegating such noxious little minds to the irrelevancy they deserve. In this particular case, I would hope that Mr. Vargas gets the maximum penalty for his actions under the law, and that the judge puts a publicity ban on the trial so the platform for Vargas' undoubted appeal to his "artistic vision" does not exist.
|