Is shock value true value?

Maplethorp and the National Endowment for the Arts all over again?

New York's mayor Rudolph Giuliani did not like the Brooklyn Museum of Art's Sensation exhibit.

Must one yell to be seen above the clutter of this culture? Ceiling of restaurant carpeted with business cards. Seen in 1992 as I biked through Oregon's McKenzie River Valley.

Thought provoking photos: by region, by subject.

Internet may save culture that TV destroyed.

That show had the Virgin Mary, cow dung, sex (of course) and millions of people talking about it all over this world. While people were arguing over whether Giuliani had the right to cut museum funding, another more interesting, but somewhat obscure issue lay underneath.

Artists appeal to sensationalism to get noticed noticed. Offending and making people mad is one way to be remembered.

We live in a world of "information overload." There is so much back ground noise that someone, all too often, must yell really loud to be heard. This is especially true on the national stage. It is no coincidence that this art show is named "Sensation." Sensation is just the latest piece of "sensationalism" to successfully cut through clutter and break out onto the national stage.

All the controversy and national publicity over this is likely to have the artist laughing all the way to the bank. Some people say bad publicity is better than no publicity.

TIME MAGAZINE'S PERSON OF THE YEAR IN 2001

Should Time have picked Mayor Giuliani for person of the year in 2001? Interesting coincidence that Giuliani comes up again in this issue. Some people feel Bin Laden was closer to Time's criteria for person of the year. While Giuliani was more virtuous, Bin Laden truly made the biggest splash. Like it or not, Bin Laden shook the world more than Giuliani. It's Giuliani versus sensationalism again.

Is shaking the world a worthy criteria for choosing person of the year? Did Time Magazine paint itself into a corner with the type of criteria it normally uses to make the choice? Some say they had to abandon their normal criteria, in 2001, because the outcome would have led to such a dismal conclusion.

Is it time to rethink the whole idea of "top dog," "big splash" person of the year?

See my blog entry on Time's 2006 pick.