Art, specially modern art is often grotesque, ugly and sometimes even cruel...
The art of the old masters could be just as brutal at times:
-Pieter Breughel- The Triumph of Death
-Dirk Bouts- Disembowling of St. Erasmus
-Fra Angelico- St. Francis and the Vision of the Crucifixion
-Matthias Grunwald- The Isenheim Crucifixion
-Hendrick Goltzius- Dragon Devouring its's Victims
-Peter Paul Rubens- Le Coup de Lance
-Peter Paul Rubens- Saturn Devouring his Children
-Rembrandt- The Blinding of Samson
-Caravaggio- Judith Beheading Holofernes
-Rapist Murdering his Victim
-Gericault- The Raft of the Medusa
-Gericault- Limbs from the Victims of the Guillotine
But you feel it hits the mark.
Sometimes. Quite often contemporary artists employ grotesque imagery as an easy way to grab the attention of jaded wealthy collectors. It often goes by the term, "Shock Art".
I have a book by Umberto Eco I like very much called On Ugliness a sort of sequel to his History of Beauty. which focuses on the "negative" features of art and their changes in the perspective of art history.
There is "Shock Art" and then there is the "Sublime" as defined by Edmund Burke in his essay, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. The "sublime" is that which inspires "negative" emotional responses: horror, fear, sadness, etc... but ultimately leads to pleasure as transformed by Art.
I havenīt reflected much on decoration, but to me it is more fashion bound, while good art leaves a more lasting impression.
How so?
This is decorative:
-Botticelli- Primavera
as is this...
-Michelangelo- The Creation of Adam from the Sistine
and this...
-illuminated manuscript
and this...
-Matisse- Red Interior Still Life
It also aims to be the expression of the inhabitants of the spaces, whose tastes are not necessarily always highly artistic. In fact they usually are not. For example, someone might want to fill his/her rooms with pictures of flowers because he/she loves flowers without much concern if the pictures are artistic or not.
Decorative works of art may aim to please patrons. The same is true of illustrative and commercial works of art. But is it any different... in many cases... of works of "fine art"? The "fine artist" is theoretically free to create whatever he or she wishes... but then the audience/patrons are free not to buy art that doesn't meet their desires. While the patron/artist relationship may not be as obvious as it is when a Pope commissions a fresco cycle telling of the life of this or that saint, or when the wealthy aristocrat commissions a portrait of his daughter, or when a manufacturer commissions a poster promoting his product... there still is a realization that the artist must please the gallery directors and the collectors if he/she is going to make any money. I don't think any of the contemporary patrons have inherently better taste than many older patrons. In many instances, their taste is far worse... and far less educated.