Invisible Art That Sells !

Invisible art refers to art that is conceptual rather than physical, emphasizing the idea over the material object. In many cases, the artwork is either not physically present or is made from materials that challenge conventional notions of visibility and form. This kind of art forces the audience to engage with the concept, the space, or the artist’s intention rather than a tangible object.

Some notable examples include:

1. Yves Klein’s “The Void” (1958): Klein famously exhibited an empty gallery space as a piece of art, focusing on the absence of objects to highlight the viewers’ perception of space.
2. Tom Friedman’s “Untitled (A Curse)” (1992): This work was simply an empty pedestal, upon which the artist claimed he had hired a witch to place a curse.
3. Salvatore Garau’s “Io Sono” (2021): An Italian artist, Garau auctioned an “invisible sculpture” made of nothing but air and spirit, arguing that it existed in the imagination of the viewers.

Lo Sono isn’t the only artwork of its kind in Garau’s oeuvre. In February of this year, at the Piazza Della Scala in Milan, the artist exhibited BUDDHA IN CONTEMPLATION, a similarly invisible sculpture demarcated by a square of tape on a cobble-stoned walkway. Meanwhile, this week, he installed AFRODITE CRIES in front of the New York City stock exchange. The effort, evidenced by an empty white circle, was supported by the Italian Cultural Institute.

“You don’t see it but it exists; it is made of air and spirit,” he explained in a video documenting the Milan piece. “It is a work that asks you to activate the power of the imagination, a power that anyone has, even those who don’t believe they have it.”

Indeed, many people on the internet seem to be having trouble tapping into that power. “So you really just taped a square and called that a sculpture?” reads the most-liked comment on the video page.

Whether invisible art is “still art” depends on how one defines art. Art is a subjective experience, and its definition has evolved over centuries. Let’s break down the arguments for both sides:

Why Invisible Art is Still Considered Art:

1. Conceptual Emphasis: Invisible art focuses on the idea behind the work rather than a physical object. In conceptual art, the concept is the most important aspect, and the physical manifestation may not be necessary. This shifts the artistic experience from looking at an object to thinking about the artist’s intention, meaning, or social commentary.
2. Viewer’s Imagination and Perception: Some forms of art engage the viewer not by presenting something tangible, but by encouraging thought, reflection, and interpretation. Invisible art asks the audience to contemplate what is absent or how they interact with the space itself, pushing the boundaries of traditional aesthetics.
3. Historical Precedent: Since the mid-20th century, artists have continuously expanded what counts as art, from Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” (everyday objects declared as art) to Yves Klein’s “The Void” or the more recent invisible sculptures by artists like Salvatore Garau. These movements challenge the notion that art must be a painting, sculpture, or other tangible objects.
4. Philosophical Discussions: Invisible art questions what art is and what it means. If art is meant to evoke thought, emotion, or discussion, then even something as abstract as “nothing” can be a medium to provoke those responses.

Why Some Might Argue It’s Not Art:

1. Lack of Tangibility: Traditional definitions of art usually involve a physical artifact, something crafted with skill and creativity. Invisible art challenges this, which can make some people question whether it fulfills the basic criteria of artistic creation.
2. Perception of Value: Some argue that invisible art feels like a critique or satire of the art world, especially when it is sold or displayed in prestigious venues. Without a material object, critics may feel it lacks substance and is more of a conceptual joke or stunt.
3. Audience Disconnect: Many people still value art for its visual and emotional impact, derived from engaging with something they can see, feel, or touch. For those individuals, invisible art may lack the sensory engagement that makes art meaningful.

Conclusion:

Invisible art is art to those who embrace broader, more philosophical definitions of what art can be, especially in the conceptual realm. It is not universally accepted, but that’s part of its purpose—to challenge conventions and provoke thought. If art’s role is to push boundaries and inspire discussion, invisible art arguably succeeds in doing just that.