I don't require fulling grasping the meaning or impact, and actually anything really interesting shouldn't be fully understood by the artist. Much more interesting when they're grapling with the concepts as much as the audience. However, it'd be nice if the artist demonstrated SOME level of understanding and that they've put some thought into it before just throwing it out there to get attention. It's the mounting evidence that the OP artist gave zero thought beyond the initial shock value that discounts it for me.

Then you get into the realm of reception. What the work signifies to the artist may not be what it signifies to you, may not be what it signifies to me, and so on and so on and scooby doo be do be (oooo cha cha).

Certainly. But as long as the work signifies something to the artist, whether I agree with it or find something more (or less), it gets from me more respect than when they fail to demonstrate that it means anything to them beyond surface shock value.

Not that every piece of art has to have great meaning behind it. Lord knows I'm as big a fan of aesthetic graphic art as anybody. But when you're doing something in the realm of a complex subject matter, and especially when it's pretty obvious that you're coming up with something where the best anyone's going to say about it is, "At least it's engendering a conversation," you'd better, to keep my attention, do something that shows that you're a participant in the conversation, not just an attention-seeker.

I sort of agree, but having not seen the work, or engaging the artist, all I know is what's been filtered to me through the media - which has it's own self-serving distortion when it comes to things outrageous.