Oooo, the classic debate!

I err on the side of yes, because it was effective at making people react and think.

If an artistic attempt isn’t purely decorative, and/or expressive, it damn well needs to make people respond and think and maybe even feel.

Would that specific work have done that if it wasn’t so in-your-face about the concept of what art is? Nah, probably not. But art doesn’t have to be subtle, it just has to work.

That being said, it’s art in the guise of provocation. It’s as much commentary as art itself. So I can’t call it “pure” art, the way something like a Mondrian can be, where it challenges what art can be while also being a direct expression of the artist and their take on things.

That’s a valid aspect of art as a part of human existence, being a provocation, being meta-art. But it tends to make the actual work boring as hell. The interesting part of a banana taped to a wall is that it was done, not the banana and tape itself. It’s really rare for that kind of thing to have lasting value and impact. It’s transient, empty once the idea is reported on and discussed. You no longer need the banana or the tape; you have the idea Of a banana taped to a wall as a piece of art.

That’s where such efforts are interesting and invigorating. They aren’t about the piece. If the piece is delivered in the right way, at the right time, and then gets transmitted, the actual art is in the minds of little people, not on the wall. You can just piss on a statue, and that can be art in the same way if the idea gets transmitted, becomes a meme in the older sense. The artist, by being provocative and meta, creates the art not on the wall, or in the original act, but on the canvas of human thought and communication.

And, going back to the beginning, that’s what art is all about, if it isn’t purely decorative.