Personally, I liked the second article better than the first one. The first one seemed to simply give examples of times in which art was censored. It did not go into much detail and it was almost just listed. The second article focused on a story and explained what happened and how it happened. It also discussed more than one side of the argument. Overall, the second article was a more refined and quality source of information. "The Art of Controversy" included mostly quotes from people which gave interesting perspectives on the situation.
A lot of he art that was talked about in "Art In Russia" seemed as though it was being created simply because people were mad at government officials and wanted to do something crazy. For example, one "piece" was just a bunch of people publicly having sex. There did not appear to be much thought put into the work and its meaning was very loose. In my seminar group, we discussed in depth how the intent is the determining factor when it comes to deciding if something is art or not. If the person creating it wants it to be art, than it is even if it is "bad". Works like the one mentioned above may not necessarily seem like art but if the creators want them to be then they will be.
The main argument in "The Art of Controversy" was that tax payers should not have to pay to fund offensive art shows that may be shown in public galleries. However, there is not really an easy way to do this. It was suggested by the mayor that it should get moved to a private gallery but people would still find it offensive no matter where it was shown. The main conclusion I came to after reading these articles is that art should only be considered offensive if it was created with malicious intent. Different things are going to offend different people no matter what. Everything can be considered offensive by someone.