I want to pick up on thread that was brought up by K. Hamilton in her post about Damien Hirst..."ART IS WHAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH". Maybe for Hirst it should be "ART IS WHAT YOU CAN MARKET AND SELL". The essential images are not that shocking when taken into context. What he has been doing has been done for years. His ideas have never been that great but his ability to make commodities, push them into the market place and have them go at super high prices sets him apart.
Let's talk about shock and subject matter. Take a look at
Joel Peter Witkin(and it particular the two corpse heads kissing). In all of art, not much offends me but this crosses a line. He went to Mexico, where the laws are loose, got these corpses(these two are elderly twin brothers) from a morgue and photographed them. The problem here is consent. If an amputee, transgender
adult dwarf consents to have their picture taken, fine. But the dead are not around to give their consent so leave them alone. You can be as gross or offensive as you want to be in your art, but being exploitive is wrong.
For my money Witkin and his corpses are more disturbing than Hirst and his animals. The difference is, Hirst's animals are real and automatically make better commodities and will command a higher price than a just photo.
And for you guys, this is all very interesting because images (can) have power. That's something nobody can deny. Subject matter is a very important choice to make. What do you want to say? It goes far beyond "personal expression".