'PC drivel' or art?

I vote for the former. I particularly like the Dalrymple quote in Sissy Willis' post:

With admirable courage, Ms. Lapper has overcome her disability to become an artist with, alas, all the tedious conformism of her professional tribe: It goes almost without saying that she is a single mother sporting ironmongery in her nose. Her own art, according to a eulogistic Web site, "questions notions of physical normality in a society that considers her deformed because she was born without arms." The eulogizer, however, does not spot the irony here -- that Lapper has shrewdly (and, in the circumstances, understandably) commodified her armlessness, turning it to an advantage. If people truly considered her condition either normal or beautiful, it would be disastrous for her career . . .

What I find particularly ironic is the placement of the armless woman in Trafalgar Square, which pays homage to a man who was missing an arm and blind in one eye. Surely a triumph for the disabled?

Of course, Nelson probably didn't think of himself as disabled in the modern sense of being part of a protected class. Nor would he be likely to dwell on the "beauty" of his disability.

Were a statue of Nelson be erected today, how much emphasis would be put on the armless socket and blind eye?