Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's an interesting question I think, and reminds me of an article I recently read about a Gilbert & George exhibition which attacked Catholicism. The point of the article was that Catholicism is now a 'safe' topic and that therefore, artists who trade in shock by attacking it are themselves playing it safe. The Chapman's did the whole paedophilia thing, while Marcus Harvey broke the taboo of child murder in his Myra Hindley portrait. And yet the only stir that was really caused was among the chattering classes, most of whom condoned the works (in principle if not in terms of their actual quality.) Basically, the worst that can happen to an artist (in this country at least) who targets such topics is a scathing write up in the tabloids - inevitably met by an increase in publicity and prices for the work itself. Far more dangerous would be to target something like Islam which is likely to cause a far greater stir. I'm not condoning the idea of an artist attacking a religion simply for the sake of it, but if they're genuinely in the business of provocation, and if they really do think they're trangressing taboos, then I'd have far more respect for a band like Anal Cunt if they retitled, 'You Converted To Judaism, So A Guy Would Touch Your Dick' to something targeting Islam. Now that really would take some guts.