system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Provocative art is the lowest form of art.

Art is in its foundation, for me at least, defined as something that is made to invoke an emotion in the person that experiences the art. 

Although I wouldn't consider myself an art snob or anything like it I've felt that on later years a lot of art has become more and more provocative, as in trying to make people shocked or angry. Sure, this is by all means still art as it fulfills my basic requirements for defining it as art. 

But the problem for me is that anger seems to be the easiest emotion to invoke into people. Just do something obscene, sexual or racist and you'll succeed. 

Provocative art is "easy mode" and I think that many provocative artists that lack genuine skill still get a lot of fame they don't deserve. And that bugs me, a lot.
gpt
You are asking us to change your view of what you think art is and what it ought to be. 

That's a tall order. And also not what art exists for.

By and large, art exists because the *artist* has something *they* want to say about what it means to be human, and the best way they can describe it is through their art. 

You see girls menstruating in very public ways on large paintings in a subway. You are disgusted or outraged by that. But that's YOUR problem - and it's worth using the painting as a way of examining those feelings. 

There's a lot of life that's hidden away on the margins, under our beds, in the closet, or behind closed doors. They can be awkward or difficult to discuss, but often times we can feel better when those parts of life are normalized or accepted. It can make us feel better as individuals, and it can improve society when we discuss them and accept them collectively. 

And what greater purpose can art serve than connecting our interior and exterior selves?