Italian Artist Auctions Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300(news.artnet.com)
news.artnet.com
Italian Artist Auctions Off an ‘Invisible Sculpture’ for $18,300
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181
77 comments
"No one would go to a restaurant where each dish requires a paragraph of text to really appreciate the taste and texture..." One assumes that you've never eaten with a 'foodie' or attended a wine tasting.
“I guess I do have a question about the chicken...”
Portlandia: Colin the Chicken
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G__PVLB8Nm4
Portlandia: Colin the Chicken
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G__PVLB8Nm4
And if you're from outside the US and the video is blocked, here's another link to Colin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErRHJlE4PGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErRHJlE4PGI
That's a really funny clip, thanks for the link!
I have, and since it was good food/wine I certainly could have enjoyed it without the words that were said about it.
In other words, what was said enhanced the experience without being essential.
We wouldn't eat food or drink wine that requires many words of explanation to even be palatable - that was my point.
In other words, what was said enhanced the experience without being essential.
We wouldn't eat food or drink wine that requires many words of explanation to even be palatable - that was my point.
The people who argue that aesthetics and beauty aren't required for art basically reduce art to novelty. Whatever rubbish you throw together, as long as it's a new arrangement of rubbish and you have some pretentious GPT3-esque word salad to describe it, is enough to get modern art fans off. Or you get the modern art fans who say art is just about 'creating a reaction', but wouldn't be quick to support Confederate statues or other things that happen to not align with their personal views, despite it causing quite a reaction. For some reason beauty and aesthetics get bashed more and more in recent years.
I agree with a lot of that, but there's a difference between something being art and something being worthy of support.
If you buy into the idea that art is about creating reactions, then the reaction that you're going for is very important. In fact, maybe it's the main way you judge whether the artwork or is good or not. From that perspective, you can consider a Confederate statue art but unworthy art.
If you buy into the idea that art is about creating reactions, then the reaction that you're going for is very important. In fact, maybe it's the main way you judge whether the artwork or is good or not. From that perspective, you can consider a Confederate statue art but unworthy art.
That just kicks the can down the road. It basically boils down to "art is stuff I like". Art also has a reputation of opening people's minds and letting them see the world differently. By the logic of worthiness, people should never support art unless it's basically propaganda for their own beliefs (which is what I believe modern art functions as).
Astute observation, especially in the age of social media.
As for your restaurant example, I would gladly pay for it. I didn't pay enough attention to many things in my life until I got to know them better.
Made a small edit to my comment above to clarify.
I appreciate well-explained masterpieces -- both in art and in food -- where the explanation enhances the experience without being essential to even being able to enjoy it at all.
I appreciate well-explained masterpieces -- both in art and in food -- where the explanation enhances the experience without being essential to even being able to enjoy it at all.
The same goes for music with lyrics.
Those are rookie numbers - imagine how much he could have gotten by selling an NFT of an invisible sculpture!
Edit: brb, I've got an invisible bridge to mint.
Edit: brb, I've got an invisible bridge to mint.
Ah! You are right.
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/this-scannable-nyc-bill...
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/this-scannable-nyc-bill...
That's basically what the buyer got:
The lucky buyer went home with a certificate of authenticity
The lucky buyer went home with a certificate of authenticity
You could argue the certificate is the art, and self referencing art ain't new. René Magritte wants his pipe back.
But why have a paper certificate, which you could loose, when you could get digital consensus on a block chain that you own a url to the certificate!?
/s
/s
Microsoft strikes again.
I'm going to start selling imitation pieces for $100. Just waiting to be sued for copyright infringement...
I'm going to start selling Inflation for 1000 dollars each. The price is guaranteed to go up.
You jest, but TIPS (https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/i...)
Ask the Fed to buy it and tell all your friends. The Fed will love this product.
> Just waiting to be sued for copyright infringement...
I mean the estate of John Cage sues people for including silence in audio tracks, so why not.
https://edition.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
I mean the estate of John Cage sues people for including silence in audio tracks, so why not.
https://edition.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
That's not an accurate description. They didn't have 'silence in audio tracks', they had a silent track, named One Minute of Silence.
Significant silence in music isn't Cage's invention, and if that silent minute was embedded in a track, there's enough prior art that Cage's estate wouldn't have a claim.
https://stringsmagazine.com/silence-the-way-in-which-great-c...
Significant silence in music isn't Cage's invention, and if that silent minute was embedded in a track, there's enough prior art that Cage's estate wouldn't have a claim.
https://stringsmagazine.com/silence-the-way-in-which-great-c...
That's still absurd. Theoretically I could infringe on Cage's track by just not plugging in my headphones. Absence of work/product should not be copyrightable.
Nonsense. Failing to plug in your headphones is no more infringing than practicing a copyrighted piece of music without an audience. Infringement occurs when a work is performed or produced for sale. Also, the name of the track was almost certainly a factor in the decision.
So if I charged someone to listen to my unplugged headphones then it would be infringement? As for the names how is "A One Minute Silence" and "4'33" not different enough?
I have an entire universe in my hand I will sell it to you for £1000
I will sell you a handshake by that I mean the moment and location in time space during which the handshake happened. It's guaranteed to be unique and it is impossible to create a forgery according to the no cloning theorem.
Don't be so silly.You need to have a long Continental name with a double or triple-barreled surname.
I'll do t-shirts with copies for $29.99
Good for the artist and good for the customer. By being outraged, you’re only feeding the notoriety that makes the work, yes, work, more valuable to the buyer and seller alike. The world makes no sense whatsoever if you believe in intrinsic value and spend your time judging the actions of others. If you wouldn’t have bought this, cool - but I find that even less interesting than an invisible statue.
Except art is used as a tax vehicle. Then nonsensical valuations disproportionate to intrinsic characteristics exchanged between corporations and foundations makes a lot of sense.
It quite alters the respect to other genuine works of artists, but it is an art of itself. An artifact of our legalized societies, perhaps a comedy staring at us as much as we stare at its sale price.
It quite alters the respect to other genuine works of artists, but it is an art of itself. An artifact of our legalized societies, perhaps a comedy staring at us as much as we stare at its sale price.
Yes, if it really was about the artwork itself, then you wouldn't sell it because there is nothing to be sold in a way that can be captured by existing property law.
>The lucky buyer went home with a certificate of authenticity and a set of instructions: the work, per Garau, must be exhibited in a private house in a roughly five-by-five-foot space free of obstruction.
There's some precedent here - the 'set-of-instructions-as-art-object' goes back at least the 70s (maybe earlier, not sure when Sol Lewitt first started doing them for his wall drawings [1], or if he was even the first), often used by conceptual artists as a tool to monetize/distribute (and institutions/patrons to support) an otherwise unmonetizable or undistributable practice. Kind of a retro move now in the age of NFTs and Patreon, but there's a history to it, even if this is probably one of the least interesting examples it I've seen
[1] https://imageobjecttext.com/2014/02/05/just-following-instru...
There's some precedent here - the 'set-of-instructions-as-art-object' goes back at least the 70s (maybe earlier, not sure when Sol Lewitt first started doing them for his wall drawings [1], or if he was even the first), often used by conceptual artists as a tool to monetize/distribute (and institutions/patrons to support) an otherwise unmonetizable or undistributable practice. Kind of a retro move now in the age of NFTs and Patreon, but there's a history to it, even if this is probably one of the least interesting examples it I've seen
[1] https://imageobjecttext.com/2014/02/05/just-following-instru...
Isn’t that the same as a company logo with instructions about minimum space to other elements and color of the background? How does it help with monetization?
It just means there's a physical artefact - the value becomes attached the piece of paper with the instructions on, as that can then be used to manifest "legitimate" performances/installations of the work (eg in a museum, or wherever)
Too bad, I already have one of these in my living room.
Pfft, I have one in every room.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away”
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I'm very much into conceptual art. I don't care if it's an invisible sculpture or a banana taped to a wall or, I don't know, a single tiny red dot placed somewhere on a white building.
I enjoy the thought process that goes into these things. I love the fact there was a person who thought people would enjoy the sight of a concrete ball in a glass bathtub or something, and they went and created it.
The enjoyment I get from, let's say, plain drawings of objects or vistas is very straightforward, it's already done. The enjoyment I get from conceptual art is somehow "procedural". It's a seed for my thoughts, it's a little blip of curiosity in world full of mundane objects.
I enjoy the thought process that goes into these things. I love the fact there was a person who thought people would enjoy the sight of a concrete ball in a glass bathtub or something, and they went and created it.
The enjoyment I get from, let's say, plain drawings of objects or vistas is very straightforward, it's already done. The enjoyment I get from conceptual art is somehow "procedural". It's a seed for my thoughts, it's a little blip of curiosity in world full of mundane objects.
> love the fact there was a person who thought people would enjoy the sight of a concrete ball in a glass bathtub or something, and they went and created it.
That last part is key for me - that they actually made it. I personally would never bother with such "silly" ideas, but I nevertheless understand how much effort is involved in sourcing, manipulating, transporting, etc. physical things, and I have a certain amount of inspiration and respect for people who follow through with their ideas, however trite or uninspiring I might find them subjectively.
That last part is key for me - that they actually made it. I personally would never bother with such "silly" ideas, but I nevertheless understand how much effort is involved in sourcing, manipulating, transporting, etc. physical things, and I have a certain amount of inspiration and respect for people who follow through with their ideas, however trite or uninspiring I might find them subjectively.
Speaking of invisible things, the Museum of Flight in Seattle put Wonder Woman's Invisible Plane on display a few years ago and more recently loaned it to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum for display [0] [1]
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ig4aJey9QZM
[1] https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/Wonder-Womans-Invisi...
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ig4aJey9QZM
[1] https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/Wonder-Womans-Invisi...
For anyone who doesn't check the video out, it was on display for one day: April 1st.
Two days (both April 1st, but in different museums in different years)
I was taught long ago that the key to selling art is to give it a good story. I guess this guy decided to skip all the superfluous parts.
> I was taught long ago that the key to selling art is to give it a good story.
You laugh, but this is absolutely what art is, especially modern art. The best way I've heard to understand art, and this kind of art in particular, is that art is a dialogue - it's a concept and it's a reflection on its environment and its circumstances more than it's a piece of technical execution. This is particularly true of movements like Abstract Expressionism, which tend to garner a lot of the "my kid could have done that"-type comments - they're focused on things like exploring new techniques, on trying to make works with different materials, on trying to express concepts without using form or figure. Works often exist "in conversation" with other works - for instance, an artist may make a painting explicitly referencing another artist's work or as a refutation of a different school of thought, and these works may not be particularly interesting taken as an individual work, but if you understand their context, they can be a fascinating intellectual accomplishment.
All of that's a long way to say that if you just look at art as a decorative or technical exercise, you're absolutely not going to understand the art world or often why a piece is considered interesting or valuable - you need to also look at the context of the piece and what the artist was attempting to accomplish to get the full picture.
You laugh, but this is absolutely what art is, especially modern art. The best way I've heard to understand art, and this kind of art in particular, is that art is a dialogue - it's a concept and it's a reflection on its environment and its circumstances more than it's a piece of technical execution. This is particularly true of movements like Abstract Expressionism, which tend to garner a lot of the "my kid could have done that"-type comments - they're focused on things like exploring new techniques, on trying to make works with different materials, on trying to express concepts without using form or figure. Works often exist "in conversation" with other works - for instance, an artist may make a painting explicitly referencing another artist's work or as a refutation of a different school of thought, and these works may not be particularly interesting taken as an individual work, but if you understand their context, they can be a fascinating intellectual accomplishment.
All of that's a long way to say that if you just look at art as a decorative or technical exercise, you're absolutely not going to understand the art world or often why a piece is considered interesting or valuable - you need to also look at the context of the piece and what the artist was attempting to accomplish to get the full picture.
This is true from an explanatory perspective but it still doesn't make it valuable or interesting.
The only art in any of this is the art of bilking money from morons who want to impress other morons.
The only art in any of this is the art of bilking money from morons who want to impress other morons.
> This is true from an explanatory perspective but it still doesn't make it valuable or interesting.
This is literally applicable to any subject which the listener doesn't find valuable or interesting. To someone outside our field, kubernetes is neither valuable nor interesting in and of itself either. Nothing is valuable or interesting for its own sole sake.
This is literally applicable to any subject which the listener doesn't find valuable or interesting. To someone outside our field, kubernetes is neither valuable nor interesting in and of itself either. Nothing is valuable or interesting for its own sole sake.
I guess I'd give you interesting (although plenty of normal people find consumer tech interesting that uses kubernetes under the hood) but kubernetes clearly provides tangible value to many organizations.
But yes, I'm also just conveying a subjective opinion. I think this is worthless bullshit designed solely to steal money from suckers. Feel free to subjectively disagree.
But yes, I'm also just conveying a subjective opinion. I think this is worthless bullshit designed solely to steal money from suckers. Feel free to subjectively disagree.
[deleted]
Empty art can actually be serious. An example from music is John Cage's 4'33" [1].
The point was that just because the performer/performers is/are not playing their instruments does not mean you have silence in the concert hall. You still have the sounds of the audience, sounds from things like the HVAC system, sounds from outside, and probably others.
We are never truly in silence (even in an anechoic chamber your hear your body), but we learn to ignore these ambient sounds most of the time to the point that we usually aren't aware of them even if the things we want to listen to are briefly silent.
Cage wanted the audience to realize and experience that there was no true silence, and that there was a whole world of sounds that they had been ignoring.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
The point was that just because the performer/performers is/are not playing their instruments does not mean you have silence in the concert hall. You still have the sounds of the audience, sounds from things like the HVAC system, sounds from outside, and probably others.
We are never truly in silence (even in an anechoic chamber your hear your body), but we learn to ignore these ambient sounds most of the time to the point that we usually aren't aware of them even if the things we want to listen to are briefly silent.
Cage wanted the audience to realize and experience that there was no true silence, and that there was a whole world of sounds that they had been ignoring.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
Henri-Robert-Marcel Duchamp (/duːˈʃɑː/;[1] French: [maʁsɛl dyʃɑ̃]; 28 July 1887 – 2 October 1968) was a French-American painter, sculptor, chess player, and writer whose work is associated with Cubism, Dada, and conceptual art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp
Fountain is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R. Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp
Fountain is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R. Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
Money laundering at its finest!
This is honestly an interesting thought. People could just start generating invoices for whatever they want for "immaterial sculptures".
I refuse to believe this has any source other than money laundering though.
I refuse to believe this has any source other than money laundering though.
That, or Schitt's Creek-style "I'm rich and it's a joke".
The idea very much yes, just not for puny 20k$...
This work is completely derivative of Yves Klein's Zone de Sensibilité Picturale Immatérielle from 1959.
> The work involved the sale of documentation of ownership of empty space (the Immaterial Zone), taking the form of a receipt, in exchange for gold; if the buyer wished, the piece could then be completed in an elaborate ritual in which the buyer would burn the receipt, and Klein would throw half of the gold into the Seine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_Sensibilit%C3%A9_Pictu...
> The work involved the sale of documentation of ownership of empty space (the Immaterial Zone), taking the form of a receipt, in exchange for gold; if the buyer wished, the piece could then be completed in an elaborate ritual in which the buyer would burn the receipt, and Klein would throw half of the gold into the Seine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_Sensibilit%C3%A9_Pictu...
I find it more substantial than the NFTs that seem to be all the rage.
It does make you think. In both cases you have to acknowledge that you're just giving an artist money, presumably because you just want to support them and their work. At least NFTs are usually tied to actual work of art they did and you (and everyone else) can admire that work and get some kind of enjoyment out of it. So I would have to say most NFTs are objectively more substantial than literally nothing.
Maybe a little dramatic, but I think the entirety of modern art is an argument that nobody should be obligated to respect another person's belief or culture on principle. Some people's idea of taste, value, beauty, or what is interesting is just simply moronic and not worthy of respect. Where you draw the line is up to you but there's gotta be a line.
Consider this my calling card. I am the greatest thief in the world, and I shall steal the sculpture at midnight.
But more seriously, most contract law requires consideration from both parties. I wonder what would happen if the buyer demanded his money back, and just sort of said he still has it?
But more seriously, most contract law requires consideration from both parties. I wonder what would happen if the buyer demanded his money back, and just sort of said he still has it?
> But more seriously, most contract law requires consideration from both parties. I wonder what would happen if the buyer demanded his money back, and just sort of said he still has it?
Not sure if more serious is still half joke :) However, according to the article, a certificate was provided with the sale, so in case of return, the buyer couldn't prove anymore they own it.
Not sure if more serious is still half joke :) However, according to the article, a certificate was provided with the sale, so in case of return, the buyer couldn't prove anymore they own it.
[deleted]
If this was a publicity stunt I'd say it's working quite well.
Much of the "modern art" has turned into a publicity stunt with some random object bolted on.
This is a more pure form, when the useless object is not even added.
This is a more pure form, when the useless object is not even added.
This has got to be what peak art bullshit looks like. Can't top that!
I'm just going to put my artwork here: . Please email me with your bids, staring bid $999999
I did a double take just to make sure this wasn't an article on The Onion.
We can mock this, but i don't see why a canvas with a few random splodges of paint casually thrown at it should be much better.
Can't wait to trade NFT of it.
I've said this many times -- I contend that the actual product, the creative output as it were, of much modern art isn't the thing itself, but what is said about it.
Nothing ugly (or invisible!) is self-evident, even to the most highly trained senses. They all require many words of explanation in their own little ways.
No one would go to a restaurant where each dish requires a paragraph of text to "appreciate" the taste and texture, and is unpalatable otherwise...