So: maybe I'm a flippant relativist or a poseur, but I don't see the problem. On purely aesthetic terms, I'm not a fan of the work.
[WS:] I never suggested you are a flippant relativist or a poseur. Au contraire, I consider your postings to be among the most sensible on this list.
I do not see a problem with fart-art either. What I meant to say is that there is a difference between bona fide artists who have genuine skills - yes it is all about human skills and abilities to transform objects, rather than objects themselves - and charlatans who hide behind nihilism, criticism, and convention breaking simply because they do not have the skill and the ability to do actual art. Stated differently, if a classically trained musician plays a simple tune at a gala concert - it is likely to be convention breaking because the musician has the ability to give a virtuoso performance, but she chooses not to. However, if an amateur plays a simple tune - the chances are that this is all he can play - so his act is a reflection of his limited ability rather than any convention breaking.
When it comes to criticism and convention breaking, moreover, the "when" and "under what conditions" makes all the difference in the world. When criticism and convention breaking takes place in an environment dominated by rigid conventions backed up by moral and political authorities (e.g. Victorian America, or Stalinist Russia) - it actually means something, and can be even an act of courage. But when it takes place in an environment when breaking such conventions became a hackneyed ritual - as it is the case today - the chances are it is either herding behavior, cheap self-promotion, or mere cover-up for one's lack of talent and ability.
Wojtek