Invisible Art: MONA Revolutionizes the Concept of Real

[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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

I'm not discussing anything with, or along with, fuzzyfelt here. My last post was a response to yours.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

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.

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!

 

[timthereaper]

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.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

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 ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_sh*t