[Grustaf]

Modern “art” is very often offensive, but usually that is seen as a good thing. It’s “irreverent”, it “challenges norms”. I suppose the problem is that this particular hack challenges the wrong norms?

[the_af]

I don't see him challenging the norms, so I'm gonna guess "no". It seems to be that his art is a dime a dozen sort of low quality crap. Crap is in itself unsurprising -- most of everything is, see Sturgeon's Law -- but what's surprising is the amount paid for such low quality, low effort crap.

No sign of norms being challenged here.

[Grustaf]

Of course it’s low quality, but so is Pussy Riot or any equivalent leftist “art”.

Surely the author of the article felt that drawing a “black dude” etc was un-woke?

[the_af]

I'm not sure what you mean by leftist art but, in general, I'm going to disagree with you.

I think the author of the article felt the art was generally crap and that the amount paid for it was surprising, a sentiment with which I agree.

[UncleMeat]

You can find largely equivalent content and messaging in political comics sections of a daily newspaper. What norms is this work challenging?

[Grustaf]

Apparently the author of this article felt that he challenged PC norms.

[UncleMeat]

Not really. The author points out some misogyny in the work. That's a pretty common analysis point and is certainly not sufficient to "cancel" an artist (de Kooning is extremely famous and his pieces sell for gazillions despite some criticism here). That is different than "challenging PC norms".

[the_af]

No, the author felt the art was crap. Anything else seems to be your own projection.