Were the farting exhibition to move to a gallery in San Francisco would it lose its meaning, assuming it has any? I believe it would. This makes it more a stunt. That can still be interesting and enjoyable to many people but it isn't art.
[WS:] While obviously we seem to be more or less on the same page on this, I also think that there is more to it than the context or venue - or for that matter - content. The specific content of what people consider art is affected by individual and collective experiences and circumstances, and thus changes historically and geographically. I do believe, however, there are some universal features that define what art is. One of them is that being considered a work of art requires a specific artistic talent or skill of transforming or controlling material objects. If the creation of an object does not appear to involve any specific "artistic" skills or abilities and it is something that anyone can do, most people would not consider it art. I think it is pretty universal across history and geography.
What defines us as human beings is the ability and skill to transform the material world instead of merely accepting it "as is." That ability and skill is ultimately embodied in the arts, but not limited to it (cf. "artisan" labor.) Likewise, taking away that ability and skill by, say, Taylorization is decried as ultimate dehumanization (cf. Braverman, _Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century_). Stated differently, skilled labor is what defines us as humans, and what is celebrated and revered as art and creativity - in the classical Greek "demiurge" sense, rather than in the sense of making things up out of thin air. I think you will find that element in virtually every culture - the contents of objects of art changes, but what is constant is that the creation of each of these different objects requires skilled labor i.e. the possession of a unique skill to transform or control material objects.
I also think that this emphasis of artistic skill was the message of Duchamp and Co. in the era where objects of art became capitalist commodity that can be bought, owned, preserve or add "value" (i.e. exchange value), and sold. The multiple "originals" created by Duchamp and finally the toilet seat (or a bicycle wheel) placed in an art gallery were radical manifestations of that idea. It was not the object that can be bought, owned and sold that matters, as Duchamp devised clever means to undercut the commercial value of the work art embedded in the notion of "original" (which implied limited supply and owner control of that supply) first by producing several of them, and then by using mass produced objects. And if it was the object, then it must have been the creative act of the artist-demiurge that produced that object.
Unfortunately, such form of artistic communication is wide open to abuse by charlatans and poseurs interested mainly in self-promotion, social climbing and status. They often do not have enough skill to create what would be consider art, but hide that by creating crude concoctions and being flippant about work of other artists - all that to create an impression of "breaking conventions," and thus being so above the ordinary tastes and aesthetic sensibilities.
Wojtek