Your comment made it sound like the artist had defaced an historical object.
I’m no art critic, but I would interpret the work as a statement on a mundane, usually overlooked object becoming something dazzling and valuable (eta: as literally happened to Van Gogh, and you could go further and say he was sat on and used during life, etc; I can think of much more, but it doesn’t sound like you’ll care), but that’s just me.
Of course it isn‘t. It‘s based on his painting and completely misses the point. It‘s a really stupid piece in a tasteless gallery.
Your comment made it sound like the artist had defaced an historical object.
I’m no art critic, but I would interpret the work as a statement on a mundane, usually overlooked object becoming something dazzling and valuable (eta: as literally happened to Van Gogh, and you could go further and say he was sat on and used during life, etc; I can think of much more, but it doesn’t sound like you’ll care), but that’s just me.