You simply don't know what the goal was. I would think that breathing life into a vile monster would, among other things, tend to make his monsterism more obvious to observers, and perhaps elicit responses exactly like yours. For all you know, maybe that was the goal. (I'm entertaining your whole "goal" rubric for a minute, but since you brought it up in the context of art, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that art needs to have a goal other than "art itself." Art with a goal is arguably propaganda or advertising. But I don't hold that view rigidly either.)
Added a few minutes later:
Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, most of which seem to lean toward shallowly trivializing and dehumanizing the one whose motives are unknown and guessed-at. Could it be that they are a fully-functioning adult with an actual rationale for their actions that you just don't know of?
Allegory: A motorist sees a cyclist on the road, can't understand why they would do that to themselves, and assumes, in the blinding light of their own opinion and car-only experience, that it must be because of a death wish. Based on that shitty reasoning you could go all sorts of places - for example, thinking it would be OK to run over the stupid asshole since they're obviously some other species that is too dumb to protect itself inside a car as do all good folk like me.
> For all you know, maybe that was the goal.
That's my interpretation, yes - it's rage bait. It was meant to be upsetting in a vacuous, meritless way (with all due respect to OP).
> Not knowing someone's motivations, and making up something to fill the blank, leads to errors, ...
I'll hazard that. I'm interpreting the art. I'm open to hearing a different interpretation. I'm open to hearing OP's objections to my interpretation (should they have any). I'm not open to the idea that we simply can't analyze or interpret.
I'm not simply "making something up." I gathered what evidence I could find (eg I read OP's comment history), I thought about the piece, I reasoned my way to a conclusion, and I went through several drafts of my comment to remove any swipes and hone my criticism. Could I be wrong? Sure. Again, I will hazard that. I pondered this already and decided I would rather be wrong than silent.
> ...thinking it would be OK to run over the stupid asshole since they're obviously some other species that is too dumb to protect itself...
Wild, wild leap. This is not remotely the same reasoning I am employing. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. I'm not in danger of dehumanizing and murdering someone because I told someone exactly why I didn't like their art. I went out of my way to be respectful. If someone didn't like my work I would want to hear it and I would want it to be expressed respectfully and without malice. So that is what I did.
To be frank, I think you should reread your comment and consider if it is not you that is imputing my motives in a shallow manner.
Look up the word allegory. You're not a character in the allegory.