Invisible Art - Can It Be?
Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 11:09AM 
“The Telegraph” has reported that “a leading gallery is to push the boundaries of visual art with an exhibition of works which cannot be seen.” They claim that the “show” will include works by such artists as Andy Warhol, Yves Klein and Yoko Ono. What’s more--they’ll be charging £8 a person for the privilege of attending this first-of-its-kind exhibit.
Now...I’m quite flexible with regard to definitions of art. We’ve seen some incredible creations--on this site alone: sculptures in the eyes of needles; paintings on matchbooks; masterworks copied using jelly beans; and magnificent pencil and lego sculptures. I consider all of these works of art. But blank pieces of paper and empty plinths (bases)? I’m not so sure. If we stare long enough at a white piece of paper or an empty space--we probably will imagine (not see) something--if for no other reason than we’re bored. But unless an artist has specifically developed something either on or surrounding an environment--something designed to stimulate some type of a response--then it’s difficult for me to define this as art.
The idea of invisible art isn’t new. Yves Klein (one of the forerunners of Minimalism) proposed an “architecture of air” back in the 1950s. However, his exhibits along these lines did include particular setups by the artist--so he was involved in the artist/viewer collaboration. Whether or not this current exhibit includes actual “creations” remains to be seen. If it does not, however, then it may be time to start reestablishing some boundaries. If we reach a point where anything--or nothing--is art, then art ceases to exist.
Reader Comments (1)
This is over the top. Even a minimalist should present something for the eye to see and let the mind take its course. As a colorist, I object to this type of "art". But again, it is art only if one deems it so. I would rather a sky of blue than a sheet of white.