Invisible Art: MONA Revolutionizes the Concept of Real

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of invisible art as presented by the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) and its implications for modern art. Participants explore the nature of art, the commercialization of conceptual pieces, and the societal reactions to such trends. The scope includes theoretical critiques, personal opinions on modern art, and reflections on the absurdity of selling non-visible artworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express strong opposition to modern art, arguing that it has devolved into selling nothing and calling it art.
  • Others question the legality and appropriateness of selling invisible art, particularly in relation to minors.
  • A few participants highlight the financial success of invisible art projects, noting that they have garnered significant funding through platforms like Kickstarter.
  • There are claims that modern art is primarily a marketing tool, with some arguing that it exploits wealthy buyers for aesthetically insignificant pieces.
  • Some participants reference historical movements in art, suggesting that the current trend of conceptual art is not original and has roots in earlier artistic philosophies.
  • There are humorous and sarcastic remarks about the absurdity of the situation, including personal anecdotes and exaggerated reactions to the concept of invisible art.
  • Participants discuss the idea of conceptual art, noting that the concept itself can be considered the artwork, which raises questions about the nature of artistic value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the value and legitimacy of invisible art, with multiple competing views on its significance and implications for the art world. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the merits of modern art or the concept of selling invisible pieces.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific artworks and their descriptions, highlighting the ambiguity and subjective nature of what constitutes art. There are also mentions of historical precedents in conceptual art that may inform current discussions, but these connections are not universally accepted.

  • #31
fuzzyfelt said:
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"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
fuzzyfelt said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
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. :smile:
 
  • #34
fuzzyfelt said:
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
Evo said:
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. :smile:

Sorry Evo I was writing as you posted!
 
  • #36
  • #37
zoobyshoe said:
I'm not discussing anything with, or along with, fuzzyfelt here. My last post was a response to yours.
I thought you two had a good serious discussion going.

The rest of us are just dissing the invisible art for being stupid, not looking for a discussion of it. We're heathens zoob. :-p
 
  • #38
Evo said:
I thought you two had a good serious discussion going.

The rest of us are just dissing the art for being stupid, not looking for a discussion of it.
I haven't said a word to her, nor she to me. I've talked to Russ, you, and Proton Soup.

Aside from pointing out it's not as new an idea as Russ thought, I've been dissing it as well.
 
  • #39
zoobyshoe said:
I haven't said a word to her, nor she to me. I've talked to Russ, you, and Proton Soup.

Aside from pointing out it's not as new an idea as Russ thought, I've been dissing it as well.
You are definitely welcome to continue dissing it with us, it's just a fun thread.
 
  • #40
Evo said:
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. :smile:

Evo said:
I thought you two had a good serious discussion going.

The rest of us are just dissing the invisible art for being stupid, not looking for a discussion of it. We're heathens zoob. :-p

Wait! What?! Only ridiculous posts are allowed in this thread and serious posts should be made somewhere else?!

My head is spinning here as if the entire Earth has shifted on its axis, causing little eddy currents within the semicircular canals of my cochleas. Strangely, it feels as if the room is spinning in a clockwise direction, which must mean the eddies in my ears are spinning in a counter-clockwise direction.

Now seriously, how often does art do that to a person?

On a side note, I've noticed something incredible about this art. You don't even have to go to their website to imagine it! That is so cool!
 
  • #41
If P.T. Barnum was still alive, he would make a killing on this. Gates, Carlos Slim and Buffett would have to watch their backs.
 
  • #42
This has been a "[URL business[/URL] for 50+ years; I guess the only 'new' thing would be selling 'invisible sh*t' (farts) for €124,000...EDIT:
The link was a little bit too artistic for PF’s filter, replace * with i ... :biggrin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_sh*t
 
Last edited by a moderator: