Conceptual art can be hard to understand, I get it. The general public gets it. But to take the stance that art is a "juvenile stunt" as stated in your article written last week is to reveal that the general public may require a lesson on the innovative styles of Dada, Abstract Expressionism, DeStijl, and the other forms of art that are often carelessly labeled as "juvenile" or "easy". Yes, these are the styles of artwork that the general public stares at and, in frustration of not understanding the point of the work instantly, proclaims "ugh, I mean, anyone can do that. This is stupid".
Satirical as it may seem (and sometimes be), there is actually a point to these works besides a shock and awe value. It is, in a sense, exploring the realm of everyday objects as art and appreciation for the ready-made. It is the breaking down of reality and conceptual law, beginning as early as Manet's Olympia to Munch's The Scream and onward to Duchamp's Fountain, a piece strikingly similar to Cattelan's piece that will be both used and observed within the Guggenheim. Those pieces deemed "ugly" by viewers such as yourself are fulfilling their purpose with your own distaste. It is a form of Expressionism that tricks the viewers, mocking those who accept the "ready-made" object as art all the while maintaining that it can be art simply because there must be a sense of beauty, irony, and innovative thought in all objects, especially those that are "looked at but not seen".