It is a disgusting piece of filth. Regardless of what the idiot that made it says.
The problem for you is that no one elected you OMNISCIENT UNIVERSAL ARBITER OF ART
Art is inherently meaningless to a large degree. It is the individual person that brings meaning to it, and that includes all they have learned from their society. The form of the art and the environment it is in contribute some inherent meaning but the person experiencing it has to do the rest.
The notion that the intention of the artist is all that matters or doesn't matter — both are false. Everyone contributes to the meaning of art. No one owns it either. It is not fully definable because it's a subjective attitude on the part of the person experiencing it that completes it. We can use culturally-shared understandings as a reference but those are never fully universal.
All art policemen are like fashion policemen — arbitrary.
Now, if a statue shoots needles out of its eyes and kills kids viewing it there is a lot less subjectivity in terms of whether or not the piece of art is "bad". This is because the culturally-shared understanding is a lot more universal — protect kids from killer stuff. This factor, though, is a mundane one, not an issue of art. It doesn't matter if it's needles out of a statue or something most wouldn't call art. "Performance art" in particular, though, becomes a truly murky area. And the needle example points to why we have things like ratings labels for products. Consent is a majorly debated factor in art/censorship. A radical artist says the art needs to be forced on people to expand their mental horizons. The conservative viewer says it's like being assaulted (ironically, like the conservative "rape lesbians to turn them straight" mindset).
All art is performative, though. It's really a quagmire to get into because it's the subjective experience that defines it. Good luck defining each individual's subjective experiences for everything that can be potentially experienced artistically.