Are artists charged with contributing to collective wisdom?

Farid raises an excellent point when he questions whether artists have a duty to contribute to our collective wisdom. Strictly speaking, he is correct; we do not, and ought not, evaluate art solely based on its alleged contribution to collective wisdom. Ars gratia artis (art for art's sake) is indeed a perfectly defensible position. But I would suggest this justification does not fit in the current context.

I question whether the people who are engaged in depictions of this sort are truly engaging in art for art's sake. Rather, I think their purpose is solely to shock. To the extent that they realize that their depictions are not only not advancing the ball (see my prior post), and are having the additional effect of infuriating a very large number of people who find their depictions offensive, I think that it is reasonable for such artists to take a hard look at themselves. There is a certain glorification in our culture of people who do grotesque things just for the sake of being grotesque; it is considered "cool." It pushes limits, expands boundaries, etc. etc. And quite rightly, people worry about self-censorship, and a cultural climate where creativity is stifled because of a risk of stepping on other's toes. But the point is that there is such self-censorship all the time. Consider the examples I gave in my last post, or in prior posts. I realize that using the Holocaust can seem tiring, even offensive, but it is an extremely powerful example.
How many artists do we see who are mocking the suffering of Jews in the concentration camps? It possesses a great deal of shock value. Would we care if an artist did precisely that? Yes, absolutely. So, we have self-imposed limits on what is culturally tolerable, what we consider to be contrary to basic human tenets of respect. The real underlying problem here is, as I indicated in my last post, that the creators of Southpark and others want to send the message: "Get over yourself. Welcome to the 21st century. Get on with your "Reformation" already!" That approach is deeply flawed, for reasons I would be happy to talk about at another point. So, in conclusion, yes, artists should care about the impact of their work, the context in which it is placed. Again, we should be very careful to distinguish this from legal sanction. But the "slippery slope" argument is not enough to counteract the notion that such limits should, and do, exist.