It struck me how totally non-provocative 99 percent of new ‘artists’ -- visual, musical, and otherwise -- really are. The 1999 ‘Sensation’ art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art caused enough of a stir that then-Mayor Giuliani tried to pull the exhibit’s funding. What’s ‘controversial’ and ‘provocative’ now?

Britney and Madonna’s old-news “provocative” kiss on the 2003 MTV Awards was covered ad nauseum by the fuddy-duddy press. Poor attention-deprived Christina A. -- she kissed Mystic Earth Mom Madonna too, but people barely noticed. Then there was Britney’s ex-boytoy Justin T. getting entangled in Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. It all gets pretty lost in the avalanche of ‘my-milkshake-brings-the-boys-down-to-the-yard’ booty-vibrating videos currently burying the hormone-pumped 18-to-35 male demographic. We’ve already got more excruciating anatomical detail on an average episode of CSI than most people can handle without an oxygen tent. What could be next? I’m reminded of a Tom Waits joke about seeing a lurid neon marquee that proclaimed, “XXX Rated Girls” which was so severe-sounding he took it to mean, “Girls Without Skin.”

According to my handy built-in MSWord dictionary, “provocative” means 1) deliberately aimed at exciting or annoying people; or 2) intended to arouse other people sexually. I tend to think of “provocative” as more “to provoke” but that’s just me and Mr. Webster: “Serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; exciting.” I might buy the sexual definition in this case, but then I think of Britney and Christina as just warmed-over Madonnas, who is herself just a cruder, less talented, less attractive disco-diva Marilyn Monroe, not to mention more desperate-looking in her thirst for relevance with each passing day. Nope, it’s the provoking part of “provocative” I want to focus on.

What’s provocative about shoveling prurient material to a hungry, willing, receptive audience? That’s about as provocative as feeding worms to baby birds. The only people outraged by it don’t buy Britney CDs anyway. That’s not “provocative,” that’s “marketing,” or as I like to call it, “boring.” Stuffing kibble down the throats of hungry puppies is easy.

I’M CONVINCED THAT THE MOST SHOCKING, most disturbing thing in today’s world is a truly happy person, content with their life and dedicated to making others’ lives better. If a person with a happy, well-adjusted spirit ever got any air time (ignoring for the moment deity-level figures such as Oprah), the media would immediately go deep background to ferret out the “dirty little secrets” that must surely be lurking there. At least, lurking in a place where only jaded, cynical, career-climbing reporters can see them.

What’s truly “provocative” (and what you hear very little of), is above all else, a set of challenging ideas that force you to assess what you believe and more importantly, how you act on those beliefs. Try provoking someone armed with only an idea apart from a lurid visual (like cartoons of Muhammad or truly disturbing photos from Abu Grahib), and you’ll see how much more challenging it is.

I’m going to go out on a limb and announce that “responsible” is the new “provocative.” You remember what responsibility is, don’t you? Look at Madonna’s late, gushy discovery of domesticity, mommyhood and cute little children’s books (contradicted by the cynical ‘scandalous’ media pandering, her faux-militant political ranting, and Kabbalistic “enlightenment.” And, oh yeah -- what was the snappy title of the last book she authored? That’s right -- Sex.). Madonna shouldering the responsibility of motherhood is more shocking than a closet-full of pointy bras.

It’s easy to provoke for the sake of provocation. Paint yourself orange with pink spots and run naked down the highway. On second thought, don't.