In his 1975 book The Painted Word, Tom Wolfe attempted to expose the ludicrous depths to which modern art theory had sunk:
The conceptualists liked to propound the following question: suppose the greatest artist in the history of the world, impoverished and unknown at the time, had been sitting at a table in the old automat at Union square, cadging some free water and hoping to cop a leftover crust of toasted corn muffin or a few abandoned translucent chartreuse waxed beans or some other item of that amazing range of Yellow Food the Automat went in for – and suddenly he got the inspiration for the greatest work of art in the history of the world. Possessing not even so much as a pencil or a burnt match, he dipped his forefinger into the glass of water and began recording the greatest of all inspirations, this high point in the history of man as a sentient being, on a paper napkin, with New York tap water as his paint. In a matter of seconds, of course, the water had diffused through the paper and the grand design vanished, whereupon the greatest artist in the history of the world slumped to the table and died of a broken heart, and the manager came over, and he thought that here was nothing more than a dead wino with a wet napkin. Now, the question is: would that have been the greatest work of art in the history of the world or not? The Conceptualists would answer: of course, it was. Of course it was. It’s not permanence and materials , all that Winsor & Newton paint and other crap, that are at the heart of art, but two things only: Genius and the process of creation! Later they decided that Genius might as well take a walk, too.
Behold Process after Genius has taken off for a stroll:
[L]ast month, the actor James Franco put his name behind a strange new project called the Museum of Non-Visible Art, which takes what it calls conceptual art to a whole new level. Their website is here and there’s an explainer video here, but in simple terms, the idea of the museum is that the works of art don’t exist physically, instead they are imagined by the artist. So when you purchase the “work of art” you get a “card” to hang on an empty wall and you “describe it to your audience.”
Amazingly, the museum just made one big sale. A woman paid $10,000 for a piece title “Fresh Air,” which Paste Magazine describes as:
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.
That reminds me. Last week I imagined a beautiful and stunning abstract piece about ennui and corn chips. I won’t say its the best work anyone has ever imagined, but it is—I imagine—in the top ten pieces imagined in the 21st century.
If you’re interested in purchasing a limited reproduction (only 3,999 editions will be imagined), they can be had for the low, low price of $19.95. Check, Visa, and PayPal accepted. No imaginary money, please.
July 22nd, 2011 | 12:35 pm
That woman totally got ripped off. I paid way less than she did for my CD single of John Cage’s 4’33”…
July 22nd, 2011 | 12:50 pm
Have you ever seen James Franco act? He’s a one-man Museum of Non-Visible Art.
Oh, and we used to have a perfectly serviceable word “invisible” for things that are not visible.
July 22nd, 2011 | 12:53 pm
The woman who bought the air is a “new media producer”. What exactly is a “new media producer”, and how on earth do they make $10,000.00?
Judging by this woman’s acts and words, she is mentally ill:
“I felt that the act of purchasing “Fresh Air” supported my thesis about a concept I term “you-commerce,” which is the marketing and monetization of one’s persona, skills, and products via the use of social media and self-broadcasting platforms…”
July 22nd, 2011 | 1:14 pm
I don’t know that the following is a defense of The Museum of Non-Visible Art, but reading this did make me think how interesting it is that a composer can write and sell music, which has no physical existence (sort of). You can buy a copy of, say, the score of a symphony, but you don’t then own the symphony. And you can buy a ticket to an orchestral performance of the symphony, but you down own the music. If the music is still under copyright, someone representing the orchestra must pay someone representing the composer for the right to perform the music in public, but the ownership of the music has not been transferred. Someone can buy all the rights to the music from the composer, but do they own the music itself? There is no music unless an orchestra performs the score. Something similar might be said of choreography. I suppose written material is somewhat similar, too. If I secure the rights to translate a Swedish novel into English and sell it in the United States, I have bought one thing and sold something else entirely, in many ways. So ideas are bought and sold all the time. If the description of the invisible art were sufficiently long, it seems to me it could be considered a piece of literature, and there is ample precedent for paying money for a piece of literature. Actually, there is ample precedent for paying money for a relatively small number of words. Unless it is a matter of fair use, you have to pay a permissions fee to quote just a couple of lines of poetry or song lyrics in a work of your own. I once worked on an introductory music textbook in which the authors used the tune of Happy Birthday to You to illustrate musical notation, and after the book was published, we got a notice that the song was still under copyright (who knew?) and we had to pay a fee.
This is not an endorsement of The Museum of Non-Visible Art (although James Franco is a very bright guy, and I take him seriously), but the idea is actually quite provocative.
July 22nd, 2011 | 3:33 pm
So… she paid $10,000 to create evidence for her own theory that people will pay $10,000 for that sort of thing?
The art world seems more incestuous with every passing day.
July 22nd, 2011 | 10:40 pm
A couple of years ago I saw “The Lights Turning Off and On” as a field trip chaperone. I was in heaven — I had read about this prize-winning British art in a Dave Barry column, and there it was! Long flourescent lights turning off and on! Sadly, I was not a very good chaperone because I kept laughing at the art.
I called the museum and left a message asking if they had the artist’s actual lights, or just the code for the timer. No one ever called me back. But I really did want to know.
July 23rd, 2011 | 12:13 pm
Do a google search for “Highest Paid Worst Performers CEO” and consider that many investors have spent far more money, some of it real, for something that’s even less visible.
May I suggest Joe post some news from the silly side of business and economics? It’s not just about art.
July 23rd, 2011 | 5:27 pm
Living in Seattle in the early 1970s, my husband and I had season’s tickets to the Seattle Symphony under the baton of Milton Katims. One evening’s performance featured two artists, complete with large easels and large canvas, standing on opposite sides of the stage. Each had his pallet in hand and a set of oil paints. Each was to express in the medium of oil on canvas his emotional response to a new piece of contemporary, dissonant music that was being premiered by the Seattle Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Maestro Milton Katims.
As the performance proceeded, each artist was busy painting away, deeply inspired and emotionally moved by the brilliance of the composer, the conductor, and the orchestra. However, the easels were turned away from the audience, unseen until completion.
When the music concluded and the audience was applauding with great enthusiasm, the artists turned their easels to the front. Each canvas was a field of solid blue. And everyone exploded in appreciation for the joining of art, emotion, and music.
My husband and I felt “taken” and cheated, and as if we had just been made objects of derision. Neither of us applauded. We just turned and left the concert hall without staying for the remainder of the performance. I’m not sure we ever went back.
July 23rd, 2011 | 5:32 pm
P.S. That performance told us everything we needed to know about Seattle, and nothing improved during the following nine years when, much to our relief, we were finally able to make our escape.
July 25th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
I wonder how the work “Fresh Air” would be received in Beijing . . . and I don’t mean by the political authorities. Cough! Cough!
August 2nd, 2011 | 5:01 am
[...] A major trend in the 20th and 21st century art world has to become ever more “minimalist.” As artists have tried to achieve the least possible gesture that could be called art–going from representations to idealizations to reductions to basic forms to pure forms to color fields to lines to found objects–they arrived at “conceptual art,” in which there is no art at all, just the idea for the art. Museums and art buyers can purchase and display the notes that record the idea for the work of art, which is never made. Now we have “The Museum of Non-Visible Art,” in which there is nothing at all. And it has recorded its first sale: Woman Pays $10,000 For ‘Non-Visible’ Work Of Art » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog. [...]
August 2nd, 2011 | 9:48 am
The emperor still has no clothes. This is just an old story for a new generation of gullible people. As an art teacher, I do not allow my students to turn in an assignment like this, let alone market it to the public. “The dog ate my homework,” is a better line. At least the work once existed, we hope.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact