Sorry Billy, but the man is insane, and if he considers himself an artist, then may I suggest that he try that at the prisoners exit of a courthouse.

There is no way that I would not allow anyone the freedom of self expression. While I have a moral and religious stance on the pornography industry I cannot take away the rights of an individual to engage in any way they so rationally choose in that industry as long as the participants are of age and not mentally disadvantaged. And as long as my rights not to engage in that activity is respected. Meaning that the old lady should not have been so accosted in the sanctity of her own home against her will.

If the fool decides to put on a show in private where interested individuals could have the choice of viewing the exhibition or not then I see no reason to disallow it.

Now if, art is in the eye of the artist, is your point, then I agree, as long as the beholder has their own choice on what to behold and what it's worth to behold it.

You are wrong Billy. Something is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. Appreciation is a different thing.

Art is a representation of the artists ideas. Take the Diary of Anne Frank. Not withstanding her demise, her thoughts and ideas were probably never meant to be for anyone else, yet her writings hold an appreciation and value to many. In speaking to herself she spoke to millions. Buddhist priests use colored sand to make the most beautiful geometric tapestries on a table. They spend the whole year producing it, many hours of painstaking labor, only to brush it all away on some special day. An artist, I forget which hung a white canvas on a wall and called it, Girls On Communion Day, Playing In The Snow, or something like that.

Humanity has been want to express himself since his dawn. Cave drawings, carvings, at a time when there was no money exchange. Same goes for sexual expression and certain levels of pornographic expression. One of the differences between Humans and animals is we know where to draw a line, at least in theory.

What else is one with an objective ability for expression in art to do with a huge slab of marble or bronze, better used for art than war.

Why else drag tons of volcanic rock carved into huge figures of men looking to the stars, for miles, except to say, "We are here"?

This didn't start with modern societies. It has been a right of passage for civilization for centuries. With or without courts.

I can see that point in a metaphysical sense but not in a political sense.

I've been to war and it is, at times, a sublimely visual experience, and, at times, an awe inspiring experience. From fencing or ballet, to the Forth of July to debasing pornography.

There was a show here a few years back which displayed an actual human body dissected with the parts specially treated out in the open. My wife wanted to go and I pretended to have some business that day so she went with friends. I just couldn't bring myself to go no matter how sterile and benign they made it seem. I am by no means squeamish, but the thought of someone willingly electing to be carved up, flayed open and exposed is undignified to me. I could just see myself running around to cover him up.

But, I can see making analogies between war and art, and its emotional connections. But, again, war is not just political and its participants are not always political. If there is a political analogy connecting the two its tenuous form my perspective.

Although I do believe that the mind is in constant conflict, but I know there is also a settlement possible for that.