It appears he is not the first to explore
I apologise for appearing as very negative but it's not really art. Yes I undertand that people have different opinions of what defines art, and to confine it would be an oxymoron. However, some parts of this journey would have been quite frankly a waste of petrol. It's not like he left a literal mark on the floor that could be seen from space or anything. He created movent in a pattern except it's not even dance. There is nothing physical about the art, all you can see is the picture that's created afterwards, it's not as if people can put up that picture...or sell it, It can't really be admired except in thought. All art (as I understand it) is something physical that you can touch or see, this is just some mental art for us...so that we can imagine the journey and appreciate its concept. That's pretty much what a book does, it just creates a story for you to appreciate in your mind...you don't see the story.GPS drawing.
However I guess I am a little surprised by the people who have commented saying he hasn't done anything for the human race/waste of money there are people starving. Could not these same statements be applied to any modern artist? Artists such as Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Dan Flavin, David Hockney, Claes Oldenburg, Sol Lewitt and Eva Hesse don't seem to be vilified for their wastage of money or lack of 'adding' to society. However I guess this calls into question the purpose of art, which is not really what this thread is about.