Invisible Art: MONA Revolutionizes the Concept of Real

[russ_watters]

Yes, I know I started a thread by the same title a while back. But...

I've always been against modern art. It's just not art. But now they've taken it to the logical extreme and instead of making stuff that isn't art and calling it art, they just aren't making anything and are still calling it art!

On its website, MONA describes itself as “an extravaganza of imagination, a museum that reminds us that we live in two worlds: the physical world of sight and the non-visible world of thought," which "redefines the concept of what is real." The museum goes on to add that "Although the artworks themselves are not visible, the descriptions open our eyes to a parallel world built of images and words. This world is not visible, but it is real, perhaps more real, in many ways, than the world of matter, and it is also for sale.


A variety of invisible pieces are available via Kickstarter, where $20 will yield an invisible sculpture by Praxis, and $50 will find a 19th century garment from James Franco’s imaginary film “Red Leaves” on your doorstep. Or rather, a card describing the 19th century garment from Franco’s film since the costume itself can be seen only in one's imagination.

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...fiting-from-his-invisible-art/?iref=allsearch

Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I know I started a thread by the same title a while back. But...

I've always been against modern art. It's just not art. But now they've taken it to the logical extreme and instead of making stuff that isn't art and calling it art, they just aren't making anything and are still calling it art! http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...fiting-from-his-invisible-art/?iref=allsearch

Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

Well, after the crackpot armageddon show I just watched on Nat Geo, why not pay for nothing?

OMG! The insanity has to stop, right? I mean the insane appear to be taking over.

 

[BobG]

Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

Are you sure that's legal? Given the age range of Physics Forum, you're selling invisible pornography to minors.

 

[Evo]

Are you sure that's legal? Given the age range of Physics Forum, you're selling invisible pornography to minors.

It's art, not porn.

 

[BobG]

I think a mentor should edit Russ's post to "Imagine a statue of me scantily clad. Now pay me $50."

Have to keep things PG-13, dontcha know.

 

[waht]

Amazing. They are actually earning revenue on this:

Presumably these invisible pieces aren’t purchased with invisible money, and while Franco’s rep confirmed to CNN that the actor did agree to contribute some non-visible art, he hasn't seen any money from the project, which so far has garnered $12,577 through Kickstarter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

I'd prolly pay to keep your nudity invisible.

 

[Proton Soup]

they got exactly what they were after, too. virality.

shame, it isn't even all that original as art goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″

as for modern art, and what is it? modern art is narrative. modern art is marketing. modern art is the child of art dealers scalping wealthy tools over aesthetically and culturally insignificant pieces. modern art is capitalism.

 

[Pengwuino]

This has to be an april fools joke.

Things this ludicrous never pan out to be real.

Or we're all being punked. Ridiculous.

 

[zoobyshoe]

they got exactly what they were after, too. virality.

"Virality"?

shame, it isn't even all that original as art goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4′33″

It's pretty recycled, yes. I can't help but think someone must have done the same thing during the "conceptual art" craze of the 60's and 70's:

One of the first and most important things they (conceptual artists) questioned was the common assumption that the role of the artist was to create special kinds of material objects.

and

As it is of the nature of paintings to be flat objects with canvas surfaces onto which colored pigment is applied, such things as figuration, 3-D perspective illusion and references to external subject matter were all found to be extraneous to the essence of painting, and ought to be removed.
Some have argued that conceptual art continued this "dematerialization" of art by removing the need for objects altogether...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

as for modern art, and what is it? modern art is narrative. modern art is marketing. modern art is the child of art dealers scalping wealthy tools over aesthetically and culturally insignificant pieces. modern art is capitalism.

More importantly, it's over. It started to die in the 1980's and, aside from the occasional throwback like this, it's not practised or taught much. There's a definite movement toward art that demonstrates some obviously skill of one kind or another.

 

[Proton Soup]

by virality i mean they got a link back. free publicity if the thing goes "viral" on the internet.

and yeah, "concepts". one finds them in things called books. books are generally a lot more work, tho. it's good to hear the concept is fading.

 

[lisab]

I'd prolly pay to keep your nudity invisible.

Done.

You owe me $50.

 

[KrisOhn]

Bloody hell, modern art sucks.

This is what you get for $10 000 off of the Kickstarter site:

By Praxis - Conceptual - Fresh Air -This is a unique piece, only this one is for sale. The air you are purchasing is like buying an endless tank of oxygen. No matter where you are, you always have the ability to take a breath of the most delicious, clean-smelling air that the Earth can produce. Every breath you take gives you endless peace and health. This artwork is something to carry with you if you own it. Because wherever you are, you can imagine yourself getting the most beautiful taste of air that is from the mountain tops or fields or from the ocean side; it is an endless supply. Naming Rights- You get an entire wing of the museum named in your honor for this purchase. The owner of this artwork will receive a title card with a description of the piece to be mounted on your wall, and used when explaining the work. You will also get a letter of authentication, and a pdf copy of the catalog! For this category, you will also get invited to the after-party if you are in New York City in November of 2011. • Important! You are not buying a visible piece of art; you are buying the title and description card for the imagined artwork.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Done.

You owe me $50.

Not yours, Russ's.

Send your pics to Zooby@shoemail.com

 

[Integral]

...
Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

Oh the humanity!


I'd give a $100 to get that image out of my mind!


There have been shysters in every generation, it is not a new thing, Perhaps we just have to many people with more dollars then cents.

 

[Proton Soup]

The standard definition of Conceptual Art back in the day was: art in which the concept of an artwork was, itself, the artwork. This was a subset of Modern Art, one weird branch of it.

for some reason, this sparked a memory of Stranger in a Strange Land. iirc, the greatest artists were dead martians who spent their eternities building artworks constructed entirely within their consciousnesses to share with other martians.

 

[zoobyshoe]

for some reason, this sparked a memory of Stranger in a Strange Land. iirc, the greatest artists were dead martians who spent their eternities building artworks constructed entirely within their consciousnesses to share with other martians.

Don't think I ever read it.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd prolly pay to keep your nudity invisible.

Well you can imagine me clothed, but that's a much more complex piece and will cost you $100.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Clearly someone thought http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm was a business model.

 

[Singham]

This reminds me of the Laurel and Hardy episode http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025591/" . LOL.

 

[Disconnected]

Imagine a statue of me naked. Now pay me $50.

Okay, here's your 50 bucks.


Now give me 300 bucks or I sue your for damages (to my imaginary retinas).

 

[Evo]

How do they know it the art gets stolen?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How do they know it the art gets stolen?

Yeah. How do you insure it?

 

[micromass]

I have imagined that I found a truly marvelous proof of the Riemann hypothesis. So I'll be claiming my $1000000 prize soon!

 

[Evo]

Why is it that these imaginary artists don't accept imaginary money?

 

[G01]

Russ's statue sounds a lot like the pulsed IR laser we have in our lab: it's invisible and if you look directly at it you WILL go blind...

 

[russ_watters]

Thats irrelevant: 9/11 generated discussion too, but that doesn't make it art either.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It garnered interest suffice to start a thread and also discuss categorisation. I don't know, has art you do agree with motivated you to start many threads on it and why it is art?

The fact that foolish things are complained about/ridiculed is not a testament to their value!

 

[fuzzyfelt]

The fact that foolish things are complained about/ridiculed is not a testament to their value!

I didn’t use the term “value”. I said “interest”, and complete disinterest wouldn’t result in the starting of a thread expressing aesthetic determinations, be they complaints/ridicule or not.

Should someone place value in challenging, or inciting discussion of, artistic perimeters, then wouldn't this be testament to some success?

 

[Evo]

I didn’t use the term “value”. I said “interest”, and complete disinterest wouldn’t result in the starting of a thread expressing aesthetic determinations, be they complaints/ridicule or not.

Should someone place value in challenging, or inciting discussion of, artistic perimeters, then wouldn't this be testament to some success?

I don't know that ridicule can be considered success, unless your goal was to be dismissed as utterly ludicrous.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn’t use the term “value”. I said “interest”, and complete disinterest wouldn’t result in the starting of a thread expressing aesthetic determinations, be they complaints/ridicule or not.

Should someone place value in challenging, or inciting discussion of, artistic perimeters, then wouldn't this be testament to some success?

I'm not going to get bogged down in the meaning of art and if provoking conversation confirms the artyness of an act.

Whether generating discussion (ignoring the content of said discussion) is "success" depends on the metric by which success is measured. If we measure success as generating discussion then yes, MONA has generated discussion and so by that measure is a "success".

Taking it as a whole though attracting a great amount of ridicule, negative criticism and derision is not an indication of success, I'm going to have to disagree with P.T. Barnum's axiom that "all publicity is good publicity" and side with his far more sensible statement of "there's a sucker born every minute"

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks for mentioning his name, I timed out trying remember!

Regardless, there is precedence in art originally dismissed as non-art or ludicrous eventually being taken more seriously. I doubt that would happen if it wasn't discussed.

And there's a precedence for art being crap and remaining crap. This is nothing good, nor particularly boundary pushing, this is just an example of anti-art (or considering the rise of anti-art to art status it's anti-anti-art).

An example of this would be exceedingly long films which show nothing happening or just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_(film)" . It's different yes but we can all talk about it by setting a series of metrics by which to measure by and decide that as avant-garde as this is meant to be, it remains crap.

 

[Evo]

You guys can start another thread on this, russ's purpose was to show how stupid some things are, not to start a conversation on whether the nonsense means anything to anyone in anyway, so let's not derail the thread.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Would anti-anti-art be art? :) What series of metrics do you mean?

Lol, defying art is infinitely recursive? Makes sense. By metrics I mean the measures by which we judge this act/concept to be good, off of the top of my head that could include but not be limited to;

How original is the idea?
What benefit does this idea have on the people who view it?
What does this art add to society?
Do I find this concept aesthetically pleasing?
How technical is the implementation of this concept?
What is the creators purpose (i.e to push boundaries or to make a buck)?
Is this art satirical or taking the piss?

EDIT

You guys can start another thread on this, russ's purpose was to show how stupid some things are, not to start a conversation on whether the nonsense means anything to anyone in anyway, so let's not derail the thread.

Sorry Evo I was writing as you posted!

 

[Evo]

Zooby and Fuzzy, I moved your discussion here - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=510881