Art or not?

Today I am going to discuss art and stupidity in the same package. http://www.stara.fi/2011/11/04/alaston-nainen-tunkeutui-kuolleen-hevosen-ruhoon/?fb_ref=fbtykkays&fb_source=profile_oneline the site / text is written in Finnish, but that's not relevant, because all you have to do is to look at the  two pictures which are obviously art in someone's eyes (the photographer's and the woman's for example)

It is extremely reasonable that art like that is not going to be everyone's piece of cake, I by myself don't find it overly appealing either, even though I have nothing against art that involves gore/blood/guts/dead things/whatever. However I find it absolutely ridiculous that people who obviously
A) Don't know anything about art
B) Are not interested in art
C) Don't have an education that involves art that gives their opinion any credibility
are trying to tell people "THUUUUTSSSSS NUTT ARTTTT!" simply because they don't like it.
Why would they think that all art is made for everyone? So seriously, what the fuck? Art is like music, everyone has an individual taste, I don't think that I go around telling "LMFAO is not music!" or "Slipknot obviously makes no music" even though I hate those artists and I love to criticize them negatively. So why would someone who is telling that it's not art go further and advertise his/her/it's retarded comments "Look at my comments! (I embarrassed myself)" People sure support the freedom of speech and a total freedom for art until it hurts/disturbs their nonexistent and meaningless feelings.

I don't seriously get how people can be so close minded? That's taking it on an extreme level. I thought that it was the year of 2011 and people who have an Internet connection should obviously have at least some sense in their heads.

Now to any non-Finnish speaking/reading/writing person, the article states that the horse was suffering. Making art like that is not even sick if the horse was suffering, it was more human to let it go from it's agony. Mostly everyone has laughed at something negative that has happened to someone before, like slipped on the ice and looked funny, that is actually more sick than art like that, because that can hurt the self-confidence of another person. Not many people get happy if they get hurt and everyone laughs at them, even if they look funny, but it's easier to laugh at others, if they fall the exact same way. Hurting the self-esteem of another individual by something he/she cannot help is certainly more sick than someone who makes art of an animal that was better off dead and got a quick death (it was shot to death)
Besides, nobody has to look at those pictures/read the article, morons choose to do that by themselves.