Or is it merely an unnecessarily provocative and insensitive attempt at a version of "art"?
Recall the decision in Cologne, Germany during the summer of 2012 that sought to ban circumcisions, despite the fact that this practice is an integral part of the religious rituals of both Jews and of Muslims.
The ban, coming mere decades after the Holocaust, made one think that this decision purportedly made for public health reasons was either incredibly insensitive or was meant to send a different message.
At the time I wrote an article titled "Keine Beschneidung für euch Juden" which loosely translated means "no circumcision for you Jews!"
So in the case of the statue "HIM" pictured above showing a praying Hitler by Maurizio Cattelan being displayed in the Warsaw Ghetto, what should we consider that to be?
An expression of artistic license designed to force viewers to reflect on the nature of evil or, as the Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote, "a senseless provocation which insults the memory of the Nazis' Jewish victims"?