Everyone has the right to comment on works of art, and the freedom to express their own likes and dislikes.

　　Recently, a work titled "Super Hive" at the graduation exhibition of the Central Academy of Fine Arts drew attention. "Isn't this just a pile of cardboard? Not even as neatly stacked as the cleaning lady in our neighborhood" "It really is art—I couldn't stack it this high; I usually collect a bit and sell it"... From these comments, it is not hard to see the netizens' mockery of the work.

　　So how exactly should we view this work? "Super Hive," also known as "This Too Shall Pass," consists mainly of a stack of cardboard and moving cartons, below which is a video of cartons being made, recycled, and shredded, along with two hands projected onto the boxes climbing upward. In the work's introduction, the author writes: Success will pass, but failure will also pass. Passion will pass, but frustration will also pass. Good times will pass, and hard times will also pass. Whatever you are going through, don't forget, this too shall pass.

　　Actually, this work is not that hard to understand. The author wants to use the carton—this perishable item—as a metaphor for life in a consumer society. Because cartons are always quickly put to use, then discarded, recycled, and shredded into new cartons, what the author wants to express is a process that is always in constant cycle, repetition, extremely monotonous, yet impossible to escape.

　　In this sense, one cannot say the author's work is completely devoid of artistry and is purely "garbage." Could it be that the public lacks the ability to appreciate art and cannot understand the author's painstaking effort?

　　The answer is likewise no. First, everyone has the right to comment on works of art and the freedom to express their own likes and dislikes; second, at first glance, the meaning of "Super Hive" is indeed not so easy to grasp, and it is quite normal for viewers and netizens outside the art field to find it puzzling.

　　The author explained: "I let everyone misunderstand—perhaps because my work looks like a big pile of garbage. My motor does move, I cut every layer of cardboard myself, and this work really cost a lot; it went through a lot of design, over ten or twenty thousand yuan. I just want to apologize to everyone—the work caused misunderstanding and made people misunderstand contemporary art."

　　Its meaning has at least two layers: first, the work was by no means created "casually"—thought went into it; second, the work belongs to "contemporary art," and viewing it with an everyday eye may produce "misunderstanding."

　　This in turn raises a more important question: is it because "Super Hive," as a contemporary art work, is too "avant-garde," thus creating a phenomenon of "too highbrow to be appreciated"?

　　In 1917, Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists in New York under the title "Fountain," creating a classic of contemporary art. The matter likewise sparked enormous controversy at the time, because a major characteristic of contemporary art works is the pursuit of breaking tradition and challenging existing forms and processes.

　　By this logic, shouldn't "Super Hive" be regarded even more favorably? Don't rush to conclusions. After all, contemporary art works can employ very trendy and avant-garde expressive methods, but this is not the true core of art. The standard for judging the quality of a contemporary art work should be whether it advocates breaking artistic autonomy and intervening in life practice.

　　In fact, without artists' constant innovation, art itself would become pedantic and lifeless, endlessly repeating historical styles and techniques and degenerating into mere craft. From this point of view, "Super Hive" has its unique expression and reflection, but whether it truly possesses an "innovative" artistic spirit and artistic value probably still awaits more professional judgment.

　　More than 100 years have passed, and the once shocking "Fountain" no longer has a very strong impact on viewers. Even ordinary people unfamiliar with the art field, after seeing many contemporary art works, will feel "nothing is surprising anymore." Therefore, the reason "Super Hive" was mocked may not only be its "weirdness," but also that its "innovation" in expressive form has not surpassed the general imagination.

　　Artistic creation, especially contemporary avant-garde art, carries the symbol of moving forward, innovating, and exploring, and for the public to accept works that transcend their own era also requires the accumulation of time.