[discostu]

Yeah, if it’s done right. You accept it, then you’re repelled by it, but you get repelled by yourself because you accepted it. This kind of art points a mirror at a part of yourself you usually think (hope) doesn’t exist, and it forces you to say “yes, I see I have the ability to be evil”, and reminds you how successful you are at not. To draw a comparison that I’m sure will make some roll their eyes it’s the reason why Alice Cooper is the king of shock rock, many can write shocking lyrics, but only Alice makes you stop and think “I’m singing along with a song about cannibalism, that’s just wrong”. You don’t really know how good a person you are until you come to grips with how bad a person you’re not.

[9thLife]

What you describe is something a bit more sublime than "We have been seduced into conniving in the violation, because we have permitted our fantasies to accept what we know to be revolting", though the latter may be involved in the former. But the former goes dimensions further in using art to serve humanity.

As for the notion that "art is supposed to challenge", that's like saying "everyone should be equal": it's meaningless.

Art is supposed to express the truth.

I've never read the book and never will, so I don't know if this "art" redeems itself. I gather not.

I prefer not to be "challenged" "to accept what we know to be revolting" nor do I think such an experience is the mother of virtue. In fact, I argue it's the opposite.

[firebrand]

Good analysis. Art puts things outside the viewer, so that we can be our true selves as God intended us to be.

If Lolita didn’t seduce you, you wouldn’t really get it. That goes for everyone, no matter what your sexual inclinations.