Art that offends

I am in living in Paris, France. Home of the Louvre, Musée D'Orsay, Centre Pompidou etc. So, I guess its only natural that I should do at least one post on art.
There are 3 main sources of this reflection.
1) I went to an exhibit of the art of Chaim Soutine
2) The idea of kitsch has been on my mind a lot after I read a book called The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera and he has an interesting section on kitsch
3) Without really thinking about it, I told someone today that "art can't be called art unless it offends someone"

Soutine was known for his part in expressionist art in Paris. He was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. He had many influences but one of the most noted at this exhibit was Rembrandt. A lot of his early expressionist pieces seem to draw some inspiration from Van Gogh. The expressionist followed after the impressionist, so it is only natural. Soutine's art it recognized because he was Jewish and crazy. Also, because it is often called grotesque (that also happens to be a title to one of his pieces). He is one of the hardest painters of the 20th centuray to understand because he suffered from depression and what he painted was often called offensive and ugly. Yet, this is what makes him so influential. This is why there is special exhibit in Paris soley dedicated to his work. Everyone who looks at it has to decide whether they think it is art, ugly, beautiful, good, bad or otherwise. (If any of you are in Paris before the end of January you need to go see it. Also, if you are in Paris and don't somehow look me up, just don't tell me).

I wonder if kitsch is simply art that isn't offensive. Dictionary.com says, "something of tawdry design, appearance, or content created to appeal to popular or undiscriminating taste." Milan Kundera says kitsch is "a categorical agreement with being." Basically, kitsch is anything simplistic and agreeable. Kitsch is art with blinders on. It cannot show you the full spectrum of life or emotion because it ignores that which is difficult or maybe "offensive." I know I have links to my photos on here and I think they might have to go under the category of kitsch. I like them and my mom likes them but basically because they capture something beautiful that I didn't create, but simply captured on film. My photography is just a catalogue of where I have been and the beautiful things I have seen. It might be nice, but no one will study it in years to come. No one will react against it or probably find anything meaningful to say about it except, "oh that's nice." This doesn't mean I will stop doing photography or posting it on this blog, but I am under no false notion that it will stir you to thought or reaction; It is not in the least "offensive." It seems that all great movements of art is a reaction against something and is received with somewhat miwed reactions. Michelangelo painted nudes. That was offensive to some. The whole Renaissance strayed from purely Christian iconography and that was offensive to some. Van Gogh didn't paint realistically, and therefore it was considered ugly and not true art. Manet painted a nude prostitute on the lawn. It was offensive because it was not only a nude but a prostitute. All these are considered great artists now, but none were received without question and without offense to some.

Andreas Serrano put a crucifix in a jar and took a picture of it and called it art. It was certainly offensive. Was my quick definition of art as anything that is offensive to quick? Probably, but why? If you have any thoughts, please I would like to hear them.