A more relevant question is "is it supposed to?" Is the standard of Duchamp the only or highest standard by which we assign artistic value?
The best art, I've found, lifts the soul and can even have a transformative effect on the observer. This does not preclude shocking art, but can be achieved even with purely abstract forms without a representative referent, let alone a shocking one.
I think it's time we open a discussion on what we hope to achieve with art, one that involves the Katy-Perry-listening, Marvel-movie-watching public and not just the "art world".
"Shock" doesn't necessarily imply shocking referent. Beethoven was shocking; Monet was shocking; Stravinsky was shocking, but none of them were shocking because of their subject matter. I think the kind of "shocking" art that they created is more what the article's talking about.
The best art, I've found, lifts the soul and can even have a transformative effect on the observer. This does not preclude shocking art, but can be achieved even with purely abstract forms without a representative referent, let alone a shocking one.
I think it's time we open a discussion on what we hope to achieve with art, one that involves the Katy-Perry-listening, Marvel-movie-watching public and not just the "art world".