</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jim68134 @ Feb 9 2003, 06:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>After reading the responses to the previous topic on the merits of Joel Peter Witkin&#39;s methods and images, I would like to know what are some of your opinions and ideas as to what the difference is between obvious shock art and images that may contain shocking subject matter but in the context of news, science etc.&nbsp; Is purpose and context the only difference?&nbsp;
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I&#39;m not sure I understand your question. Are the images produced for the purpose of changing our emotional state (a.k.a. "Art") and those intended for the sole purpose of recording fact different wholly due to their purpose and content?

My opinion: Yes they are. Or at least this could be fairly rational method of categorization.
One - "art" commonly uses shock - at some level or other - as a tool in its execution. Scientific or medical - or to a reduced level, news - is not really meant to change our emotional state, but to record and inform - without emotion.

I don&#39;t see an absolute separation between the two. Art can - and usually does - contain some record of what is happening at the time - and the others can have an emotional effect... intended or not.