I don't really give a shit about aesthetic offense, but I majorly care if I ethically offend; I really don't like the idea of hurting readers/viewers; I'm always, I guess, wondering what constitutes hurts someone versus challenges someone. Challenging, stimulating, exciting someone--that's goodgood; making someone feel terrible, hurt, degraded, dismissed, well, I'd really rather not. Another way of phrasing could be this: when is art more a crime than an aesthetic energy; when is it harrassment; when is it, quite literally, indecent; when is it better off not being written or displayed; when is it worth not being explored, pondered? When is the real, or the forgery of realness, so much more wrong than right? I'd love to edit an anthology where writers detail ideas/concepts that they would not feel ok pursuing, like probably ever; it's utterly commonplace for writers to state limits should be ignored, or fought against, but I'd be very surprised if even radical writers don't have no-no zones; I'd love to find out what those zones are! Honestly I don't see how this anthology cld even exist, as it'd involve contributors writing notes regarding what they believe should not be written, and if the words are gonna get gnarly, then the wrong, the illegal, the criminal, would get traced, and I'm pretty sure I don't even want a mere trace: too much space for holding back. Too, I imagine this sorta anthology wld decapitate the perhaps precious engine of feeling one is a badass and not, in the most macro-sense, far more timid than current discourses suggest.
Maybe this is an answer to the unasked question: Adam, do you view your poems as radical? My answer is--NO!
I guess I don't even mean radical, as that, discursively, does exist, and it is, in some circles, sanctioned, or will be soon enough.