Invisible art?

[SavageGoldfish]

Anyone else seen this?

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/21/exh...sible-art.html

I just...wtf. I give up.

[bodied]

I have a feeling this is going to turn into another "what is art" thread...

[tobbA]

I think it's only fair. Now we have an art exhibit both blind and seeing can enjoy equally.

[Shorinji_Knight]

I would pay real invisible money for one of those.

[visoutre]

I wonder what was going through his head when he looked at that paper for 5 years

[Aly Fell]

Move along... nothing to see here...

[s.ketch]

I have a feeling this is going to turn into another "what is art" thread...

I think it's safe to restrict the definition to things you can see.

[tobbA]

They should sneak in a mannikin and label it "The emperors robes" or something...

[bodied]

I don't always necessarily agree (in general the answer is yes) but that is an argument that has been retread several times here before and has gotten nowhere. I'm going to cite 4'33" as a musical equivalent and leave it at that.

Edit: Just remembered that Yves Klein basically did the same thing some 50 years ago. If anything, I'd be more upset at the fact that these artists seemed to have rehashed that idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Klein#The_Void

[dennis.k]

I rather visit a gallery of invisible lolcats

[bcarman]

Somebody make this thread invisible.

[Robert.B]

good to see the art of bullshit is still alive and kicking!

[Trixtar]

Don't underestimate the invisible!
I have a big black invisible dragon in my garden right outside my window...

[Kuroyue]

...

...

[Stuart DeViva]

Can I just say this?
Rant on definition of the word art:
Art is the dumbest word in the world. It's a caveman word. We're holding onto the past scratching our heads always trying to fit things into and take things out of the word "art".
Analogy:To me it's as if we were the first cavemen and women who created the word "fun", and we just started calling everything "fun". Instead of saying "go to the movies" it's "go to the fun". Instead of saying "play a sport outside", it becomes "play fun outside". How ridiculous does that sound? Why would we even care about using just one word to describe all these things and debate on the definition of this word when we can give them more specific and appropriate names for the sake of usefulness. After all, a word is just a sound or grunt from our mouth to give meaning to things we see in our world for the purpose of communicating in the form of linguistics.

Which for us means: Instead of "drawing", it becomes "art". Instead of "painting", it becomes "art". Instead of "sculptor", it becomes "art". Up to here, most people are cool. But then there are more words lumped into this all powerful word known as "art". And once that happens, people start to fight. Now instead of "music" it becomes "art". Instead of food, it becomes "art". Instead of "illustration" it becomes "art".
And for this instance; Instead of "imaginary painting" it becomes "art". People don't like the fact that one specific word is being used for two different things. But it does all fit under the definition of the word "art" technically. And it is! It's all art. Of course it's all art. That doesn't make "art" any less of a crappy word used to describe them.

Definition of art: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Art is a dumb word to still be in use. It's archaic.

And I think that's the real problem. We're using an inefficient word and we don't even know it. This is making us fight about what this all encompassing word means because it's confusing us and we don't quite understand why. That is because it's now an out of date word. So to speak.

And creating an imaginary painting and wanting to call it art is like saying a lawyer found a loophole in the very definition of the word art and by calling something art it then compares it to these ideas of technique and skill such as drawing and painting, and thus becomes elevated to the word art that we hold on a pedestal. The lawyer hopes you won't understand that the word art is being used to trick you into thinking it's one thing. It's confusing and doesn't make any sense because you know they are not one thing. They are obviously two different things. Let's just use words that make more sense like "illustration" or "figure drawing", to give a specific example. Instead of using a confusing word like "art" for these different forms of human creation, let's skip it and be more specific. I'm no longer going to tell people I'm an "artist". I'll say "illustrator and concept artist". Then, people won't be confused about what it is that I do, and if we all do this we might not ever have another RETARDED argument about a WORD. It's just a word. Stop elevating it as this thing of importance. When, in reality it doesn't even exist. Art is not a thing in our external universe. It's just an idea in our head that we use like any other idea in order to understand the world around us.


TL;DR: Who cares what art is? It's an ancient and useless word. To care what specifically falls under this category in our language is silly.

[StaticX]

After viewing the invisible art I began to wonder what is being said to the audience. You here on the site are here because you have an eye for it. Think of the gereral public. For the intellecual, the ivisible art would have a profound effect on the mind. The fact that there is nothingness says so much to the viewer. Now, the staring at a blank sheet of paper, well, we all have done that at one point of another. And also, that story could go as, well this is what it is, now what can it become? And for years, this artist spent his time philosiphing what can this become. There is no question on what is art? or how to define it. That has been done for thousands of years. We do not need to question a word, the point is how do artist feel about this exibition of "invisible art". Now, can I post a blank canvas call it "Empty Space" and make a mint? No, ofcourse we can't. Now, Lets laugh at some gallery for turning a profit of of nothing. Ha Ha Ha......

[Robert.B]

my question is what are the aesthetic properties of " invisible art" If not visually stimulating, through what senses are we to appreciate this work. I hope its not intended to be conceptually stimulating....because it reads like a one liner. If the intent was to bring focus to the beauty of stillness and the undefined I don't think a gallery setting is the best place for such topics. the The truth is this curator is playing " the gallery game" create a subjective construct which harbors speculations and debate. Place it in the context of a culture of critics and collectors who define themselves through a collection of items they feel reflect they're high brow status and appreciation for the " post modern" Set the price to a level that will squeeze out the common wealth and raise & eyebrow from the wealthy. BTW how do you buy invisible art? is that possible?

[Elwell]

Invisible art warrants silent response.

[Farvus]

If only they knew that I have all the artworks for the exhibition hidden in my basement .

[Redystra]

I just recalled an old conversation that I had with my art history teacher, I asked her in class if an empty canvas could actually be art, at first it looked like she wanted to say no, but than she added that it depends what the artists intention is, this absolutely stunned me with stupidity. Now, a few years later I see this, and I'm yet again still stunned with stupidity.

You know what? I'm going to photograph my face, print it and call it stupidity, because that's what I believe many people their expression will be like after seeing an empty canvas.

Oh and, I actually hoped that this topic was about art that many hadn't seen before, from great artists who never got into the spotlights, damn title tricked me!

[crossmirage]

I'm of the opinion that almost anything can be art.

Whether or not you like it, of course, is an entirely different matter.

[bcarman]

Crap, this thread isn't invisible yet.

[Star Eater]

Crap, this thread isn't invisible yet.

What thread?

[OldJake666]

Wayne Barlowe has posted some of his thoughts about this exhibition:

Okay, I'm going to make a lot of people angry with this post but I'm going to vent a little. I HATE this kind of thing. To me, it is exactly the kind of smart-assed "conceptual" BS that made me angry when I was young (in Cooper) and continues to do so. The cynical, exclusionary over-intellectualization of art by idiot gallery hucksters to this degree creates a climate wherein anything at all can be considered art and anybody can be considered an artist. And that just does not wash with me. Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe it's meant to be funny. I'm not laughing. The viewer is NOT and never will be the artist. Shame on them for this kind of farcical exhibition.

...

I am really gratified to see all of these comments. Thanks for them! The range is great form the anecdotal to the humorous - all pleasantly in sync with my own views. With one exception. And I have to take exception to it. This comment was left:

I'd say what you already know, that neither you nor anyone else holds the keys to "true art". It is whatever anyone says it is. What each of us has is our own taste. This kind of art is not to your taste, nor mine. But it beneath us to make grand proclamations about what is or isn't "true art".

The question was not 'what is true art' but what is art at all. I am a firm believer that Art takes many forms (and, no, I never set myself up to be the arbiter of defining Art). Parenthetically, I can get rather annoyingly pedantic when it comes to calling musicians, composers, dancers, writers etc. artists. They have their own wonderful and unique outlets for self-expression and titles to go with them. If the mere act of self-expression confers the title of artist upon someone then the devaluation of artists is complete.
To suggest that Art is "whatever anyone says it is" is to go along with the insidious notions promulgated by many gallery owners, curators and critics. Apart from the exclusionary elitism (after all if you can't quite grasp it it MUST be Art) it fosters it conveys the sense, once again, that it really doesn't take training, inspiration, discipline, talent, or innovativeness to be an artist. And, again, to that I say "Crap."

Once again, thanks to one an all for the lively responses! And, I would also suggest Thomas Wolfe's THE PAINTED EYE [Word] to anyone interested in his thoughts on the origins of the modern gallery world, patrons and critics.

[Eric Lofgren]

.....,...........,.........!

[JDSart]

Now i can finally say without doubt that absolutly nothing is more valuable than what i do.

[Ahnem Mee]

So here I was, browsing the site, noticing a new thread in the Lounge.
"Invisible art?"
*mouseover to see contents of first post*
"Anyone else seen this?"

....

Seriously bub?



...The art may be invisible (at least I don't see any), that pun is as big as a house.

[arenhaus]

For the intellecual, the ivisible art would have a profound effect on the mind.

Idle minds are easily amused and easily messed with.

[marion74]

I think it's only fair. Now we have an art exhibit both blind and seeing can enjoy equally.

I know that's a joke but find it offensive, blind people are not stupid, nor are the sighted. And there are blind artists who make beautiful works of art.

[tobbA]

Who said anything about being stupid? o.o