I recognize the need for art that 'brings people out of their comfort zones', & I tend to be sympathetic towards this objective of art. However, I think the issue here is to what extent artists should be allowed to go.

Artists are still humans & they're expected to behave as any decent human should. While it's commendable to take that courageous step of 'shocking' people, 'art' is not a good reason for behaving in an inhumane or indecent manner. You can't physically abuse someone, then claim it was in the interests of art.

'Art' is important, but so are many other things. The feelings of the people in the audience for one. To have such a traumatic incident in the family - how can you justify anything that could bring greater hurt to those who knew the victim? The situation is different from wearing a provocative shirt in public that has the potential to offend. I'm betting that the artist here KNEW about the case & KNEW there was a high chance that there were people in the audience who might have a personal connection to the case.

It is important for artists to be given the liberty to express themselves and pursue their art. BUT artists should not be exempt from the common, basic standards of human behaviour.

Elaine