Luis Bunuel and Antonin Artaud might have felt a need to shock their audiences into paying attention, but in today's permissive culture, art audiences have grown inured to shock tactics. Hoping to channel rebellious artistic energy into money-making, attention-getting trends, Blair Taylor, Peres Projects' New York director, has teamed up with Ellen Langan, art historian, critic, and director of Maccarone Inc., to co-curate "Sack of Bones," a group show at New York's Asia Song Society. With work ranging from the impishly irreverent to the in-your-face offensive (artists in the show include Dan Colen, Bruce LaBruce, Banks Violette, and Mark Flood), "Sack of Bones" provides ample opportunity to explore whether hardcore art can actually exist in our contemporary culture of cool, or whether art can now offer only thrills instead of shocks to the system. Here, Taylor talks about curating her first show of art that "kicks from within the sack."

Is the notion that art is inherently irreverent and rebellious a fallacy?

Yes! Art at this point is born obedient 80 percent of the time. It's not pretty.

Isn't it being too "pretty" the problem?

Well, I guess I was using "pretty" to be a little flip there, and not so much to discuss an aesthetic status quo. But, while we're here, I might as well add that I don't think "pretty" is as much a problem as "vapid." Art can be constructed to appear challenging and turn out to just be sulky in the end. That's more disappointing to me than a botanical print any day of the week.

What separates "cool" and hardcore art?

Most times, if artwork comes off as "cool," then it's the artist's fault and not the object's. By the same reasoning, hardcore art is made without that self-consciousness on the artist's part. You can tell when art exists because it has to.

Do you think that the crazy amount of money floating around today's art market is making artists complacent and too careerist, or is the romantic idea of the starving artist a destructive cliché?

I don't think artists have to starve to understand that they shouldn't rest on their laurels. Maybe the crazy money is bringing some kids to the adult table before they're quite ready, but it's also allowing some incredibly deserving artists to show their work. Thankfully, these things shake out over a long period.

So, how is this show challenging the process by which hardcore art becomes digested?

What's interesting about this show is that there's work from 1969 to now. And all together like this, it becomes really obvious that the million cycles and attitudes these objects are subjected to really aren't more important than the objects themselves. The artworks are the things that aren't fickle and aren't changing here. That's worth thinking about.

Should art shock, in order to be effective?

No way. Shock often just shortens the lifespan of an artwork, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, when it works it can really be amazing. But that's one out of every 10,000 attempts. And after an artist does it once, they still might not be able to ever do it again. Probably, they shouldn't really try.

Do you believe artists sell out when they become successful or court success?

This question's a toughie. I don't want to get into a "what is success?" mode here. But, it's almost just as annoying when people make a big thing about refusing to court commercial success. Maybe that has something to do with the best period in any artist's career. Or maybe it correlates to a time when he or she isn't engaging too much with either the benefits or the dangers of success. I say, "Keep your head down and go." The tuck position makes for good aerodynamics.