No, I didn't defeat my argument. I use the word in its original meaning.
Then you chose the wrong word as it has other definitions and your meaning wasn't clear.
The only artistic talent the creator of this thing has shown is that of a con artist -- the ability to fool the gullible public into believing that that a turd is not a turd.
There have been many stories of artists deliberately provoking their audiences - that's kind of what they do. Also his public isn't gullible at all or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Lastly you did it again - the attempt to fool anyone (successfully or not) is communication. I agree it's a pice of shit (as I have already said at least once) but it is art (kitsch or as you say schlock). The whole idea behind art is communication - if no one reacts then the artwork has failed - international press = success. If his message was a comment on the degeneration of taste or something to that effect then he couldn't have been more successful.
Message recieved - time to tear it down and throw it in the river.
Some people are so open minded that the wind blows in one ear and out the other.
Is that neccessary?