>>8070137I’d argue Jacobsen's use of grotesque imagery is a deliberate artistic choice that serves to challenge traditional aesthetic norms and provoke deeper contemplation.
The comparison made to exhibitionism is, I think, a misinterpretation of Jacobsen's intent. His art does not hide behind symbolism but employs it to evoke a visceral response and encourage viewers to engage with the underlying themes.
Art is not solely about beauty or pleasing the eye; it is also about evoking emotion, provoking thought, and challenging perceptions.
Artistic legitimacy is not granted by consensus but by the ability to stir dialogue and reflection. Jacobsen's work has undeniably achieved this, as evidenced by the strong reactions it elicits. To deride his art as valueless is to miss the opportunity to engage with it on a deeper level and to recognize the broader spectrum of what art can represent.
You can take solace in knowing that you are not alone in your opinion. From what I've read, many people, including myself, dislike his work.
