I have no problem with the gallery, the art work or the owner. But one of the problems we have today is that while everyone has the freedom and right to pretty much print or say what they want, those same people must recognize that they have to accept adverse reaction to material. If the material incites a riot and they get caught up in the middle, they should not be surprised if their nose gets broken. That is not to say the person breaking the nose is right because they are not. It is the same as a member of the Ku Klux Klan wearing a robe walking through the middle of a predominantely African American neighborhood and not expecting to be assaulted. He has the right, but shouldn't be surprised by the reaction he receives.

Reaction to images, editorials, movies or stories is not always rational. But on the other hand, I think anyone who produces controversial work expects and wants to get a reaction. In the case in point, the gallery owner due to the controversy will get far more individuals in to see the work. The art may or may not be garbage, but those viewers may see something else at the gallery they do like. The gallery has its name in the news, the artist gets pub. The price paid is going to be adverse reaction.

The ironic thing is that protest and reaction to art never has the desired effect. All the protests and controversy surrounding the movie "The Passion" only fueled interest and turned it into one of the biggest grossing movies of all times. I remember the art show in NY that contained the modern piece, "Piss Chirst" (hope that was the title). Most of the reaction took the art work completely out of context and articles in NY Times talked about how the numbers of visitors increased as the controversy grew.