Conceptual art often walks a fine line between provocation and absurdity. Few pieces have illustrated this tension more vividly than Maurizio Cattelan’s “Comedian” — a simple banana duct-taped to a wall, first exhibited at Art Basel Miami Beach in 2019. The artwork quickly became a cultural flashpoint, sparking endless discussions about the definition of art, the value we assign to objects, and the role of performance in contemporary galleries. But more recently, “Comedian” has returned to the spotlight for a reason as audacious as the piece itself: someone has eaten it. Again.
The banana, initially priced at $120,000, is recognized more for what it symbolizes than the fruit itself — a commentary on trade, worth, and possibly the commercialization of innovation. As expressed by the artist, the true piece is not the banana but the certificate of authenticity and the idea it embodies. Holders of “Comedian” are guided to regularly substitute the fruit, embracing its temporary nature and considering the process of deterioration as an element of the artwork.
But when visitors consume the art — literally — they take the ephemeral nature of the piece to a new level.
This latest incident occurred in a gallery space where “Comedian” was on display, fastened to a stark wall with gray duct tape, as originally intended. A visitor, reportedly a student, approached the piece and nonchalantly peeled and ate the banana in front of the stunned audience. The entire act was captured on video, which quickly went viral, reigniting debates around artistic expression, intent, and ownership.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time someone has consumed Cattelan’s banana. During its initial run at Art Basel, another performance artist named David Datuna made headlines by eating the fruit in front of a crowd, calling the act “art performance” and saying he respected Cattelan’s work. Despite initial confusion and security concerns, Cattelan’s team replaced the banana within minutes. No legal action was taken — and in some ways, Datuna’s act only added to the mythology surrounding the work.
The repetition of this behavior speaks volumes about the nature of conceptual art in the age of social media. Is the performance of eating the banana a meta-commentary on the original artwork? Or is it simply an attention-seeking act enabled by the virality of internet culture?
Cattelan himself is no stranger to artistic controversy. Known for his provocative installations — including a solid gold toilet titled “America” and a wax sculpture of Pope John Paul II struck by a meteorite — the Italian artist frequently blurs the lines between satire and seriousness, forcing audiences to confront their own expectations of art.
With “Comedian,” the banana becomes a mirror, reflecting back society’s fascination with spectacle, value, and disruption. Whether duct-taped to a wall or digested by a performance-hungry audience member, the banana resists permanence, acting instead as a symbol of impermanence and absurdity.
Those who criticize conceptual art frequently claim that works such as “Comedian” lack substance and depend more on surprise than craftsmanship. However, supporters point out that the responses it generates — ranging from in-depth articles in prominent newspapers to performance acts — demonstrate its influence. Ultimately, art is not isolated; its significance is formed by surroundings, analysis, and public conversation.
From a legal standpoint, the situation is more complex than it appears. Although the banana is replaceable, eating the fruit could still be considered destruction of property or violation of gallery rules. However, institutions and collectors involved with Cattelan’s work are well aware of its inherently performative nature. They are typically more concerned with preserving the idea and its documentation than the physical banana itself.
This brings up significant inquiries regarding the limits of involvement in art. If a piece of art encourages interaction, where is the boundary between participating and interfering? Is it possible for an unauthorized act to become a component of the art piece’s development? And perhaps most intriguingly: who has ownership of the narrative that emerges when someone from the audience takes action?
In today’s world dominated by digital content, art images are quickly spread and readily consumed, making the tangible piece of art almost take a back seat to its online portrayal. “Comedian” fits perfectly within this culture — an uncomplicated, nearly ludicrous image that proliferates more swiftly than the majority of great works. The banana attached to a wall is instantly turned into a meme, extraordinarily absurd, and ideally aligned with an internet-focused cultural period.
But while many see the humor, others view the artwork as a critique of the very system that elevates it. By selling a banana for six figures, Cattelan exposes the contradictions of the art world — how value can be detached from material and how commerce and creativity intersect, often uncomfortably.
Whether people perceive the banana as an artwork or a publicity gimmick, its durability — both in cultural discussions and its reiterated enactments — cannot be ignored. Each instance of consumption revitalizes the artwork, potentially augmenting its significance. In an era where focus acts as currency, and where meaning is more often collectively created, “Comedian” keeps maturing.
So when another banana is inevitably taped to another wall, somewhere in a white-walled gallery, we may all wonder: is this the original joke, a new chapter, or just another bite in the ongoing conversation about what art really is?
