I would like to take a tangent here and discuss your question on whether the opinion would be the same if it was on a museum. I hear that argument very often and it is based on a deep misunderstanding of what an art exhibition is. The main point missed is this: An art exhibition is a ”curated” event; it is almost as much about the person who arranged the event as it is about the artists themselves. There is a meaning to what you are seeing that was intended by the curator. The point you tried to make (as so many others have also tried) is based on an assumption that you could take any random work of art and put it in a museum and it would be judged solely by its ”artistic” (i.e. ”plastic”) merits. It can’t be and won’t be like that. When you go into a museum you trust the curator that what you are seeing has a meaning that goes beyond that. Every piece of meaningful art is surrounded by a context. You can’t put a few colored squares up on a museum and expect it to be treated like a Mondrian. I’m not saying you should just swallow everything that the curator shows you, discussions can and should happen. But the point remains that art cannot be judged out of context. As much as I hate NFTs and stuff like bored apes, I have to admit that the apes themselves are much more than random machine-created childish drawings; society has made them more than that, and I can appreciate that. Whether it’s art or not, it remains to be seen, but I have a hunch that this same thing was discussed when Andy Warhol put a banana in a white canvas.