Somehow you seem to have managed to get the complete opposite from this article as was meant. The Lagomarsino work dictates what you’re looking at, and the meaning is exactly what he tells you it is, so you don’t have to think for yourself. The work is utterly meaningless until he tells you. That, at least, is what everyone I talked to who actually saw the piece said about it.

The Monet does the opposite. Yes, there is an immediate response, but that response holds you there and keeps you looking, keeps you wondering what he’s doing and why. Doing a little research will uncover things about the work that will help you get even more meaning from it. Lagomarsino’s work does literally none of that. Nobody lingers over the installation. No research is needed — he told you what it means. His work is pure propaganda, refusing to let you engage with the work, imposing his meaning and only his meaning on it. It doesn’t make any demands on you, but rather force-feeds you the meaning. Monet makes demands. When his work came out, it was shocking. The reactions I’ve seen to Lagomarsino’s work? That it’s boring, a real shoulder-shrugger. Nobody cares, because nobody likes being lectured to by someone who knows he’s right, that you’re wrong, and all you have to do is read my manifesto, and all will be right in the world. A meaningless work — meaningless until the author literally dictates its meaning to you — is not a challenging work. Quite the opposite. It’s boring propaganda.