Got an interesting press release earlier this week about Italian publisher FMR’s newest art book: “Michelangelo: La Dotta Mano,” of which it plans to produce ninety-nine worldwide and which sells at a cost of about $150,000 each.

The 264-page book aims to “celebrate the legacy of Renaissance artist Michelangelo Buonarroti” through the work of Italian art photographer Aurelio Amendola. The book’s cover is a bas-relief reproduction of Michelangelo’s “Madonna della Scala,” hand carved from marble gleaned from the same quarry Michelangelo is said to have used and the paper, which has been created specifically for the project, bears “the special ‘Michelangelo’ watermark.”

There’s a great New York Times story from May with details about the publication, the launch party and a quote from FMR chairman Marilena Ferrari calling the book “a work of art in itself.”

Earlier today I was reading a conversation between sculptor Lawrence Weiner and librarian and publisher Judith Hoffberg about artists books and artist’s catalogs. This book seems to blur the line between both and got me thinking about the relationships between books, art and their audience.

Weiner contends that books are meant to be accessible and “found” and therein lies much of their value. It’s doubtful many people will ever find “Michelangelo: La Dotta Mano” in any bookshop or virtual bookseller, much less leaf through a copy.

The publisher’s have however donated a copy to the Prado Museum in Spain. A flight to Madrid, hotel, meals, and tickets to the Prado to catch a glimpse of the book (encased in glass, of course) should they ever decide to display it? A bargain-basement steal compared to the asking price.

While I do enjoy art that is edgy and perhaps even disturbing, I have been struck by a bunch of “art projects” in the news lately that seem to exist only to tick people off.

The first flap that I noticed was a local one. Adel Abdessemed’s exhibition “Don’t Trust Me,”  scheduled to open March 31 was canceled by the San Francisco Art Institute.  According to the press release, school leaders feared for the safety of their students after hearing from a number of animal rights groups about the exhibit. Basically, Abdessemed’s piece included a video of a bunch of animals being bludgeoned to death. Critics of the work, which included people in the SF arts community, said that there was no context offered to explain this cruel showing. It seemed to be included just for shock value.

The second one came across on a message board I am on. Guillermo Habacuc Vargas tied a dog to a wall in a gallery in Nicaragua and told people not to feed it. The dog died. This “piece” is just depressing.

Finally, a Yale art student inseminated herself multiple times and induced abortions for the benefit of video viewers.  While she insists her piece is not made for “shock value” it is by its very nature shocking and disturbing, no matter where you stand on the debate of abortion or procreation.

It irritates the crap out of me that these “artists” are killing animals and possibly harming themselves for the sake of making some sort of statement. The ugly fact is they are also getting the press they so desire from doing things that are just, in my opinion, terrible.

Also, there are millions of people who haven’t been exposed to the many forms of art that entertain, enlighten and inspire. The morning radio crew I listen to includes a jock who hates all forms of art, thinking it is stupid and thinking it is even more stupid that the government helps fund certain art projects.

With these types of “artists” in the news, no wonder he thinks the arts are a waste of taxpayer dollars.