Mac, First of all, it's nice to discuss something without it turning into some sort of flame war (smile). So... "It's possible to create shocking art without offending people." I don't think so. I think someone will ALWAYS be offended. Here is an artist who offended a lot of people with his shocking art but one who art critics have praised: (copied and pasted from http://www-tech.mit.edu/V110/N31/mapple.31a.html) "Controversy over publicly funded art will neither begin nor end with Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs. In mid-1989, there was an uproar over the work of another photographer, Andres Serrano, whose "Piss Christ" -- a murky, moody photograph of the crucified Christ submerged in the artist's urine -- had been partially funded by a $15,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Suddenly the search for other publicly funded, "inappropriate" art was on, and Robert Mapplethorpe's work became the next target. Mapplethorpe's earliest efforts were his most controversial. He first achieved notoriety for his work celebrating and documenting New York's gay community in the late 1970s. Often the photographs explicitly depicted sexual organs and bondage equipment. Yet Mapplethorpe's art always revealed the humanity and emotions of his subjects behind their leather, spikes, and chains. These graphic depictions of a subsection of the homosexual community later aroused the ire of the Rev. Donald Wildmon's conservative American Family Association, and subsequently that of Helms." Even Damien Hirst had his critics and people who were (I'm reading between the lines...grin) offended. That was 1955, though and now his work isn't so shocking as it was nearly 50 years ago. (copied and pasted from http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/H/hirst/attack.html) "In 1995 Hirst won the Turner Prize and it was at this time that establishment hostility reached its peak. The Daily Telegraph denounced his work as 'an odious and disgusting scandal'. Perhaps this establishment hostility is based upon its own failure to raise consciousness, and to address the social issues and taboo subjects that are the concerns of the [Young British Artists]." So, to my original statement...what is barely shocking to some is overwhelmingly shocking to others (and therefore, unacceptable). I've read about elephant shit in the middle of floors, Christ's figure fashioned out of human shit...etc. I fail to see any "meaning" behind that kind of art and I don't really appreciate it but I'd never go to a rally (or whatnot) to try to censor someone who did it. So, back to a pinup-type piece of work with a swastika in various locations. What was the artist trying to do? Shock Jewish people? Evoke shame in Germans? I don't know. Didn't get to see it. It's possible (again, grabbing at air since the item in question didn't get discussed a lot) that the artist wanted to make a sexy female type pinup and to also show that she was angry or hostile or harbored some sort of beliefs, used the most recent and popular idea of what a swastika stands for. Assuming that sort of idea behind the picture, is it art? I know you have been around long enough to know that THAT question is usually worth a big-ass thread itself....grin.