yesterday, my mum and i went to london to the private viewing on the new summer exhibition at the R&A and some of it was excellent.
One room this year has been curated by Tracey-Sneering-Emin and was suposed to be shocking. Out of the 15 or so pieces of art in the room, only two shocked me. These were a film of a naked lady hula hooping with barbed wire (gross) and a rather nasty picture of Damian Hurst as a child with a dead mans head (err?) and both me and my mum agreed that those were fairly distastful and not nice. The one piece of the entire exhibition that had been badly slated was this picture of a Zebra raping a woman. It was fairly detailed and graphic but i liked it. The picture seemed to have a flow to it that was unnusually smooth and elegant and i said that actually i wouldn't mind this hung in my home. My mum was absolutly horrified and told me i should object to it because its morally wrong.
The point is, if a piece of art is really quite wrong should we automatically dislike it and disregard it (like my mum did) or should it be given a chance and even liked (like myself)???
p.s. i hate trains