Contemporary art ways of communication:

What makes something communicate?

In this example of Dziga Vertov's 1929, "Man With A Movie Camera," as an audience, do we need narrative storytelling in order for something to be cinematic? Or can we possibly observe a work without projecting "story" onto it.

My question is:
Does contemporary art then rely too heavily on the audience for the heavy-lifting of this narrative/context for a deeper cultural impact?

As stupid as this work is I see two sides to it and believe it separates artists into two categories.

1. it's a major FU to the contemporary art world right now, and the artist is saying "haha look I can duct tape a banana to a wall and you idiots will call it art"

or

2. the artists who actually take it seriously like that damn urinal and worship this as art with the argument ":anything can be art"

3. there might be a third option of a reference to bourgeois still life oil paintings in a contemporary art context? idk



the urinal you can't
escape from --->

This isnt an argument or anything, just what ive been thinking about communication and the contemporary art world, I find so often nothing comes back to the audience with contemporary art, it feel like a one way street or projection solely from the audience onto the work and I think art needs to have this connection from the work to the viewer from the artist in order to effectively communicate.

THINKING OF THE WEEK...