Subversive & Vulgar vs. Edgy & Exciting --> The Battle of Taste

I woke up with a nagging feeling of when exactly art transitions from being edgy and exciting to subversive and vulgar. When is that exact moment when the spectator's comfort level shuts off and renders the viewer feeling repulsed rather than intrigued. The first person that crosses my mind in regards to pushing one's limits is John Waters, American film director and art collector. I sat through a lecture given by Mr. Waters about six years ago and listened to him defend his films. When the crowd gave him every possible grievance for being "smutty, perverse, and disturbing," he replied that not only is that what makes his films "art" but what makes them memorable. He said art is about pushing one's limits to the extreme. Just how much can you handle without feeling as though you have to take your eyeballs out and rinse them with soap and water? Granted, people look at the film "Pink Flamingos" as being sleazy and revolting, yet masterful and revolutionary because ti took film making to a place it had never been before. A new genre was created. However, should an overweight drag queen consuming _______ (leave it to your imagination if you haven't seen the movie -- probably better off that way) constitute as art? Where do we draw the line in the sand? 


Last year, Michael Hussar's "Daddy's Girl" was presented at Art Basel Miami. Hussar is known for his more violent and visceral images. Blood, gore, and sharp pointy objects can be found in nearly all of his paintings. Hussar's work is also categorized as "Surreal" but I beg to differ with that categorization. In my humblest of humble opinions, Surrealism offers an almost magical and whimsical escape from reality. There can be overtures of doom and gloom, as is prevalent in some of Dali's and Redon's work, yet the overall message is that of levity and escapism. Hussar's work has me so grounded in the present, that I'm bound to my chair by a ball and chain, weighted down by the intensity and gravity of the scene. Not only is this counter to Surrealism, but the feeling rendered is uneasiness to say the least. 


Back to "Daddy's Girl." Not only does the title denote a feeling of an over-sexed Lolita, but the actual image confirms it! A horned (phallic symbol) overtly feminine creature with a droplet blood on her chest (perhaps alluding to cum), strategically placed above what appears to be a giant red aureole protruding from her corset, is gratuitously sucking on a long red lollipop (second phallic symbol), alluding to a BJ. Not that I have a problem with sexuality in art, but this is a bit over the top. There is nothing left to the imagination and nowhere is there a psychological resonance other than overt profanity. What is the point of this work? It is not jarring because it is too obvious. So the hope for mental arousal is as dead as her corpse-like skin. 

At least Hussar left this Lolita "Daddy's Girl" as a figure of imagination. This year, Dan Colen, once again in my humble opinion, went off the deep end with a deeply and profoundly vulgar and insidious film poster of "The Pursuit of Happiness" manipulated so that Will Smith's son was performing an unspeakable act on his father. This sold for $150,000. WTF?! The proceeds went to a charity that builds schools in Haiti, but seriously, talk about dirty $$. What is the point of this piece of work? (Clearly not a work of art). It not only is too obvious, but it's merely a mockery of how people vandalize and desecrate public posters and advertisements. I look at this and feel disgust. Once again, no psychological resonance, because it is way too obvious and just appears hungry. Hungry for what though? What did Will Smith ever do to deserve this, other than 'Gettin' Jiggy With It?' And the poor little boy with words above his head saying "Lick My Balls." Ugh. 

 For those who know me, I do like the controversial and strange things that life has to offer. "A Clockwork Orange" is my favorite film and I appreciate thoughtful and psychological art. Yet there has to be a clear conceptual idea with a sense of intelligence attached to it. I can appreciate Patricia Piccinini's work and I can even dig Andres Serrano, but perhaps it's because these works don't push me over the edge enough. Have I lost my absolute openness to become more sensitive? 

Thoughts on this would be much appreciated! Help me regain my sense of equilibrium before I slip back into the world of Impressionism!