Where is 'art' going?

I enjoy art. I think it's a wonderful expression and representation of humanity. But then sometimes I think it goes just a little to far. Both in the realms of things that are just way to far out there, and things that just shouldn't have been done.

I was reading about some artists in the former Soviet Union, and how they were trying to express themselves. One such endeavor was a guy that buried himself under a mound of dung and had just a straw sticking out the top so that he could breath. What is that supposed to mean, or even prove? That's the kinda "art" that's just way to out there. How do you classify it as art? I just feel it's meaning less. It doesn't express anything, or show anything that a normal person would understand. I know it probably is a symbol for the oppression that artists at that time were going through, but that just doesn't really stick. How does it have a lasting effect? Like say for instance the Sistine Chapel. Now that is an amazing work of art that speaks to people. How does a man under a pile of poo, move anyone?

On the other side of things, where "art" shouldn't even have gone. I was reading the other day about how this spanish guy (Guillermo Habacuc Vargas) got this dog, chained it up, starved it to death, and called it art. Why? What is the point of that? It's cruel, and worthless. You say it's art because it goes against the norm, and because you are expressing the darker side of man. Art can show both the good and the bad, but you shouldn't have to create the darker side of "art" by causing more cruelty. I just don't see the point of it. There are far better ways to achieve your goal, and I think you did it because you have some morbid fascination with cruelty.

What will be next, stabbing a person, and calling it art? Burning down a house and calling it art? Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.