Conceptual art often teeters precariously between challenging viewers and verging on the ridiculous. Few artworks capture this dynamic as strikingly as Maurizio Cattelan’s “Comedian” — essentially a banana affixed to a wall with duct tape, which was first displayed at Art Basel Miami Beach in 2019. This creation swiftly evolved into a cultural phenomenon, igniting endless debates concerning the essence of art, the worth we attribute to items, and the significance of performance in modern galleries. However, “Comedian” has recently regained attention for a reason just as bold as the artwork itself: someone has consumed it. Once more.
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.
The recent event took place in an exhibition area where “Comedian” was showcased, attached to a plain wall with silver duct tape, as initially designed. An attendee, described as a student, walked up to the artwork and casually removed and consumed the banana before the astonished observers. The whole episode was recorded on video, rapidly spreading across the internet and sparking renewed discussions about artistic expression, purpose, 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 accustomed to artistic controversy. Recognized for his challenging installations — such as a gold toilet named “America” and a wax figure of Pope John Paul II hit by a meteorite — the Italian creator often mixes satire with seriousness, prompting audiences to question their own perceptions of art.
With “Comedian,” the banana serves as a reflection, showing society’s obsession with spectacle, worth, and disturbance. Whether secured to a wall with duct tape or consumed by an audience member seeking entertainment, the banana defies lasting presence, instead symbolizing transience 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 the digital era, where images of art circulate widely and are consumed rapidly, the physical artwork can seem almost secondary to its representation online. “Comedian” thrives in this environment — a simple, almost ridiculous image that spreads faster than most masterpieces. The banana taped to a wall is instantly memeable, perfectly absurd, and uniquely suited to an internet-driven cultural moment.
However, as some find it amusing, others perceive the piece as a commentary on the structure it thrives in. By vending a banana with a hefty price tag, Cattelan highlights the inconsistencies present in the art community — illustrating how worth can be separated from substance and how business and artistry frequently meet in disconcerting ways.
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?
