On April 28, 2023, a young man from Seoul National University (SNU) visited the Leeum Art Museum, dared to walk up to the highly valued art piece “Comedian” by renowned artist Maurizio Cattelan, and ate it. The value of the installed work was estimated at over 120,000 United States dollars (USD), causing shockwaves throughout the world of modern art. Granted, the work of art in question is a banana and it is replaced every two to three days by museum staff, but the outrage generated by the video of the student munching on the fruit was enough to send online commentators into a tizzy. But is there really an issue here?

Modern art is often seen as a ridiculous hobby catering to rich people with too much time and money on their hands. Famously, white canvas artworks and similarly “low-effort” pieces have received significant scorn from the general public, with some claiming that these pieces are not art at all and a waste of materials. While this stance holds some weight in the face of income inequality and the absurd amount of money circulating within the fine art market, the value of art is not based only on its aesthetic appearance.

To say that art must be beautiful to hold value is to misunderstand its essence. The purpose of art is not to be beautiful but to convey meaning or generate emotion. Controversial and often ludicrously outrageous works are meant to cause confusion and anger. In one classic example from art history, controversial artist Marcel Duchamp submitted his artwork “Fountain” to the Society of Independent Artists’ salon, a highly regarded group with strict standards for art. “Fountain” was swiftly rejected by the salon because it was “simply an upside-down porcelain urinal,” but this rejection was part of Duchamp’s point. His ideas about art and standards within the art world were what inspired the piece and what helped make it so controversial.

Modern art is often both a piece and a performance, more than just what meets the eye. The absurdity and outrage are part of the intrigue and the underlying story; by vandalizing it, its value increases. The story of “Comedian” has now been expanded upon, thanks to one art student from South Korea. Art vandalism could be seen as another way of contributing to the story of art, which transcends its initial meaning. By creating an unexpected situation, these vandals are in fact showing the general public the best way to respond to modern art that displeases them – by playing their own game.

Engaging with modern art can be seen as pretentious and tiring but, by responding with action rather than passive acceptance or self-righteous disdain, the tables have been turned. As a result, controversial artists and their messages can be directly challenged in the same arena. Vandalizing modern art can bring about more conversations regarding the value and meaning of the creations. There is no need for scorn-filled articles admonishing the viewer who ate the artwork because the act itself subverts expectations and adds a new layer of meaning to the already-established piece. Instead of being stagnant and always taking the side of art preservation, perhaps an exploration of the other side would create more intrigue and interest in art. For both fans of the piece who wish for its meaning to be built upon and explored and the haters who want to see the fine art market destroyed entirely, eating the ridiculously expensive banana is, ironically, the most interesting way of consuming it.