That said, there's some art that's so compelling you can't stop thinking about it. Some of it is compelling just because of the way it's done, the medium.
One example is that street perspective chalk art by Julian Beaver I'm sure you've all fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd: seen before.
Another cool innovative art medium is garbage shadow art. These are done by Tim Noble and Sue Webster and they basically make sculpture out of garbage that looks like a pile of garbage until you shine a light on it and allow it to cast a shadow. Then it transforms into something else. Behold the neat-o-ness:
(This piece was unfortunately destroyed in a fire.)
Here's street art meeting stop-motion animation from Argentinian artist Blu. He draws a picture on a wall, snaps a picture, and then erases it and does the next frame. Over and over and over. It's one of the coolest things I've seen in a while.
(A couple people have been whining that I've been putting too much media on this site lately, and that's probably true, but I believe this post will knock the Skittles one off the front page, so it all evens out. )
All of these are very cool, but do we like it just because the medium is different, or do we like it because the medium is different AND what they're trying to say gets to us? And while the second of those two is undoubtedly the most important, can we get away with just the first?
I think about this a lot, especially in terms of writing. Just because you have a great idea that's different, you still have to pull it off. And that's why there's so much crap out there.