Tom,

Regarding the Swedish art exhibit, I have to disagree with you. Like it or not, this is art, even if it is silly, pretentious art based solely on shock value, which anyone who knows anything about art knows is the easiest and least sophisticated way to express an idea. This is why we see so many images created by political artists with Bush depicted as Hitler. It's hopelessly easy, shocking, (at least is still is to some) and juvenile, and doesn't speak to anyone other than those already living on the same fringe as the artist.

This is how I judge all political art: If the work cannot convince anyone of its intended message beyond those who already hold the same belief as the artist, then it is a silly rant and deserves no more attention than the temper tantrum of a child. Unfortunately, the political art scene seems to be a catch all for talentless people who feel that a shocking, shallow message wrapped up in leftover childhood angst is enough to qualify their work. I mean really, when was the last time you saw a beautiful piece of political art?

Unfortunately, all this crap is still art; it's just really bad art. The Israeli ambassador made a big mistake by making such a scene. He would have been much better off ignoring the piece, or dismissing it quietly for the waste of matter that it is. The creator of that piece is now getting entirely more attention than he deserves.