There's only two 'true' art galleries in my town, besides the many gallery shops that are everywhere here. One is the Delaplaine, on the Carroll Creek Promenade. That place displays various nice-looking pieces as well as an area exhibiting art work of local children. I never see anything spectacular there, but I still enjoy seeing the work locals have produced.
The other place is called the Blue Elephant. This place tends to be on the 'controversial' side. In there, you'll find exhibits that display things like baby dolls with nails hammered into their faces, or pictures of small dogs drowning, or anything resembling the crucifix.
My first visit there was the first time I saw 'controversial' art. I left the place disappointed. I thought it was awful and creepy. It made me wonder what kind of 'sickos' make stuff like this. I imagine it was the intent of the artist to make me feel that way.
A long while later, a friend of mine asked me to go see his exhibit at a special show they were having there. I thought I'd give it another shot. I had forgotten how creepy the exhibits were the first time. It had not changed. There were still displays that linked children to suffering, and a bunch of sacrilegious things. This time, I walked out of the place thinking "Oh yeah, the creepy place." It no longer shocked me. Basically, you just have to take something people feel strongly about (like protecting children, or their religious beliefs) and do something disgusting or horrifying to it. Then, you would have something worthy of that display.
Now, if after two visits to a gallery like that, I'm no longer scandalized, what about 'contro' art buffs? I appreciate art, but am very unfamiliar with the whole industry. Regarding people who live for art: Do they get shocked everytime? Or is it just an appreciation that grows through exposure?
I guess I would understand if I acquired a taste for contro-art myself. I don't think that's going to happen, when there are so many more savory studies to pursue.