In the last two decades we have observed a lot of controversy in the 'art world'. There seems to be a general view that some of the biggest names in the 'art world' will choose work that 'forces an opinion' over work that is done in a more traditional manner (That is not to say that traditional art can't be shocking.). Thus, I ask this question: Do you think hype over a work of art is more important than the talent that went into creating it? Do artists need to ride the 'shock train' in order to find success in the 'art world'?
The question is a difficult one to answer if you take art history into account. I know that many of the artists I enjoy were considered 'shocking' in the past. However, the fact remains that many collectors, dealers, and artists have openly complained that 'real' art is being overlooked for work that is considered 'shocking' today. Do you think works like 'Piss Christ' will be seen for their artistic merit in the future? Will a fresh generation view these works in a different light? Tell me what you think... feel free to post links to art that you feel is 'shocking'.