I just want to add one thought to the discussion.
As I see it, Druckman imagines himself to be an *artiste,* and like a lot of artistes, he thinks that the purpose of art is to cause an emotional reaction in the viewer. If people react emotionally -- even if the reaction is disgust or anger -- then, to Druckman, that is proof he has been brave enough to create real art. He will take the negative feedback as validation. It won't cause him to re-think what he's done. It will just be self-validating. "I am an artiste who did a courageous thing. I got an emotional reaction out of people. I caused them to think."
It reminds me a little of the artists who do stuff just to shock people -- you know, they put Jesus in a jar of urine or something, or maybe they draw paintings with their own feces. When people have emotional reactions, they see that as validating. They have caused an emotional reaction in the audience, and that's what "real art" does.
I disagree with that view of art. I think real art expands your view of the world, it doesn't shrink it down and debase it. But that's a discussion for another thread.
My point is that Druckman is going to take all the negative feedback as self-validation of how much of a brave artiste he is.