Noted: The Museum of Non-Visible Art

Hmmmm, trying to think of something positive to say...

Pure twaddle

Conceptual art is a valid form of art! I think I'll start selling imagined pieces of art because they might sell better than and make me more actual money than the paintings it takes days to create.

We'll hope tons of proceeds go to impoverished people around the world?

I think it's interesting, especially on this site, which sells crafts, that crafters get offended by conceptual art. Conceptual art and arts and crafts are similar in that they're shunned as "non art," at least in my study of art history. Should hand-crafted native american bags be held on the same level as a Renaissance painting? Art is an amalgamation of culture, work, ideas, and aesthetic. That old beaded bag isn't an exception, and the MONA isn't an exception to that, and I think whoever wants to fund it should feel free to. Should we stop funding arts & crafts exhibits in the same way, because they're deemed as "non-art" by a lot of people around the world? I really don't think so. I'd rather be surrounded by art of all types, it challenges our mind and our eye in a very human way.

For sellers of art, not so good. Aimee is correct in the marketing department though isn't she?

And yes, that money could've gone to a charity, but plenty of rich people give their money to oil companies and crooked politicians and useless consumption. I can guarantee you that amount of money surpasses arts funding by SO much.

LOVE this! What a wonderful thing! This does for the world what abstract art did for the art world, asking the viewer to define art and dare I say it...create it for themselves. The beauty in such a concept is that each and every person's vision of what that "invisible" work of art looks like will be completely different from one another! It takes the tangible away and asks the viewer to paint their own picture. GENIUS! What a beautiful idea.

wasn't there a conceptual artist in the 70's that sold imaginary art or just certificates? i remember learning about it in school but can't think of the artist's name, someone help me out if you know! I don't think it was Flavin because he actually gave you the "visible" artwork with the certificate... either way, i feel like this conceptual movement has already happened......

I think the idea's a little silly, though not in a BAD way. It could make for an interesting guided tour!

very philip glass.

I feel like i'm in art school all over again..

It's the emperor wearing new (imaginary) clothes again. He and the rest of the world is fooled into believing he's strutting around in new threads. But in the end, he's still naked. Bless the MONA's marketing machine for bringing naive rich people into an art museum with empty walls and installations. People believe what they want to believe, whether that would be what defines art or what defines the stars. The emperor is still naked, everyone. Don't get caught up in their honeyed words and thought paradigms.

This is some real mind-bending stuff. Definitely expanding the boundaries of what is real and what has worth (and what worth does it have.) Everything does start in the unseen so why shouldn't the unseen portion become the product?

This may be worse than that giant tacky Marilyn Monroe sculpture...and that's pretty bad

A concept is a concept, an idea until the creator makes it manifest materially, physically. I have all kinds of fantastic ideas, concepts, projects, in my mind's eye but to bring them into the physical world and keep the concept or idea true to it's original form (in my mind or mind's eye) is very difficult. Some times it succeeds, sometimes it doesn't. It's just super easy to describe a fantastical creation that could bend the laws of physics and beauty. Gotta hand it to these people, PR and marketing genius. Is it art? Yes and No. It's a great concept, a schtick, to make money and get notoriety for being a hype specialist, a brilliant manipulator of advertising and engaging the self-appointed keepers of high-brow, but is it art. It reminds me of "the next big thing" that all marketers and money makers look for. Brilliant in that respect and also in throwing that what has become perennial question "What is Art". But I tire of the question because for me, art is something that moves you emotionally, intrinsically and it stays with you and it is visual, you can SEE it, touch it, taste it (if you wish), feel it and hear it (music, literary arts, and if you really want to, smack a canvas like a drum). We live in the PHYSICAL realm and the challenge to artists is to make the invisible, visible and vice versa (to make emotions manifest in a physical way, say in a painting with choice of subject matter, color choices, size of support, etc.). This concept piece, this performance art (I think that best describes it) is just that, a performance with a concept as the subject matter. So yes, would could bat this ball back and forth "Is it Art?". Is it real art, tangible, can you see it, see the artist's final tragedy and triumph in the final physical form? No. But, it IS performance art.

my question would be : if the art is invisible, how do you learn from it, as in, we know the Mona Lisa has been around for ages, we can study the brush strokes to recognize who the artist was, we can study mood and composition from it - and what do we do with the invisible can when the MONA closes? How do you put invisible art into art history classes - can you learn about invisible art, and how do you take a test on the description of that invisible can donated to the MONA? The only thing it seems to be learned is that the MONA encourages imagination (and an amazing avenue for people to give money!), but there's not an actual contribution to the world. Or is there and I just can't see it?

Definitely an interesting idea and a different way of viewing art or the lack of art. Maybe the empty space could cause someone to contemplate or mediatate of something else. Or if it comes with some title maybe you can image what it could be or what you would create.

Seems like a poetry trading card game. I can understand the price point in terms of marketing value, but I would rather go to an "ordinary" art museum any day... reading poetry and descriptive words about "ideas" is not really inspiring to me. Often times I get inspiration and ideas from wordless things... memories, enjoying nature, music, etc.

Shshhshop: It's not that it's offensive, and I may be in the minority, but for me the debate about what is and what is not art is truly irrelevant. What “MONA” it is is a perverse product of an obsession with abstract thought over all else. It's telling that your defense of it relies on precisely that: abstraction. You assume that it "offends" our identification with an abstract concept. What humans will do in the name of abstract thought is truly terrifying. We Americans live in a country that will wage war and engage in the meaningless slaughter of human beings with hardly the bat of an eye. The way we treat farm animals is sick and indefensible. Our politicians are engaged in ideological battles that have far eclipsed the service that they were elected to provide, and they are sinking further and further into chaos. Vast numbers of our citizens are engaged in meaningless work and have lost all connection to what it means to be productive. I would argue that all of these qualities are due in very large part to over-reliance on abstract thought, which has gone so far that most of us are hardly aware of it. If one of Etsy’s functions is to allow people to conceptualize and argue about what is and what is not art, so be it, but what it has to offer is so much more, well, real than that. One of the most remarkable things about Etsy is that it is allowing and encouraging millions of people to connect again to the process of making things, to materials and tools, to creativity and productivity, to the people who actually use their wares. And it’s allowing their consumers to support and participate in this way of life. Etsy is promoting groundedness, connection, even sanity. Shshhshop, no one wants to “take away your freedom” to purchase, say, an invisible set of crayons to do your invisible drawings; “taking away freedom” is a red herring and one, I might add, that has been used to devastating and terrifying effect by US politicians in the last 10 years. Ms Davison is as free to drop 10k on an imaginary can of air as we are to laugh at her (and assume that she’s been abusing *real* cans of aerosol) for it. I am not one who takes much reassurance in the platitude that at least MONA “makes us think”; indeed, we are a society that “thinks” too much. I am more inclined to see it as a symptom of our increasing alienation from reason, common sense, and the satisfaction that comes from real work, without which we are arguably lost.

Why is there so much hatred in this comment section? And from artists & craftspeople, no less! Would it be more palatable to your closed minds to see it as this--- You would pay for a book of poetry or fiction that just gives you words on a piece of paper and make YOU imagine the work described. This is the same exact thing. I think it's fantastic. It's just another experience to enjoy art and not be spoon-fed with the material object in front of you...which most people take for granted anyway.

I've learned in my life to never say never, but I really don't get it. I'll have to think about this some.

aschiffm-- I think you're thinking about Sol LeWitt. A perfect example. There's an installation of his wall drawings, which he typed directions for others to paint/draw, at Mass MOCA in North Adams, MA. http://www.massmoca.org/lewitt/

I do enjoy this idea, though I don't believe someone needed to make an entire museum of it.....

If a proper artist is given money for their description so that they are able to make said artwork, it's a good idea. If this is funding nothingness, it's just a talentless, artless nobody making money off nothing. Will someone give me 10k? I'll paint you a world you can see that will open your mind and give you a world to expand on in your dreams.

Like this, POP Art at its fulliest right now buying digital ideas.

"You would pay for a book of poetry or fiction that just gives you words on a piece of paper and make YOU imagine the work described." In fact, I refer to myself as Shakespeare while I'm reading his work. What I don't understand is why no one will pay me a billion dollars while I'm reading Harry Potter. That damned JK Rowling–why does she get it all? Rational thinking does not equal hatred.

After hearing a famine was just announced in Africa, I want to forget that MONA even exists.

"... a parallel world built of images and words." Like flat earth or buying slaves?

They forgot to use the word "stupid" in their description.

I'm all for using your imagination but I just can't get on board with the funding.

it's like the antithesis of the idea etsy, in a way. yes, it's fun to imagine but even innocent imagining becomes pretentious if you take it too seriously....

selling air and the idea of air

How can they support it? I can't imagine some one can raise money and get donation for the art you can't see...

ahem . . . the emperor is naked

hmmmmmm interesting... hahah but oh god i do love james franco

isfour, i would never say anything along the lines of "ur takin away our freedoms" and that's not what i was intending to say at all. i meant that i think it's a little unfair for people to attack her because her money went to something they didn't agree with. those same people bash the arts because they think it's not worth anything...artistic opinions and cultural views have worth, even if they don't seem like it now. part of being human is our capacity to have abstract thought, it's not only impossible to take that away, but why would you? a lot of progress has been made with abstraction, post-impressionist art (anything 1870 and on) being a prime example. what you're talking about is fictional truths, war mongers duping people into believing that they're doing it all for you!*~*~ and that's something totally different. your attack on abstraction is sort of unrealistic. i love having debates about postmodernism and art theory AS MUCH as i love getting my hands on some twine and paper. there's no need to get rid of abstract thought, just keep it in balance with reality. and i'm sort of baffled that you say people "think too much" - who was it that said "the unexamined life is not worth living"?

What a concept! Very interesting, but I prefer to have something real in return and who is the money going to?

Hi Shshhshop. My exact phrases: “an obsession with abstract thought over all else,” “over-reliance on abstract thought,” “we are a society that “thinks” too much.” At no time did I state or imply that we should aim to eliminate abstract thought. My point is that abstract thought is so far out of balance with body, heart, and spirit that we are capable of all kinds of atrocities. It is a crime to kill your neighbor, but you are a hero if you kill an ideological enemy. There are people who believe that god has an opinion on whether I use birth control, and there are people who believe a theology handed down by a man who claimed that the best way to make a million dollars is to invent a religion. Etc, etc. Each of these scenarios is utterly impossible without the capacity for abstract thought, and we are the only animal that possesses it to the extent of being capable of self-annihilation. My point is that the over-reliance on abstract thought is so comprehensive that we don’t even notice it is out of balance; for the most part, we don’t know what it is like when it is integrated because it is outside our normal experience. Hence my statement that we “think” too much, with the word think in quotes. I am suggesting that what commonly passes for thinking is in a sad state of decay, so far is it out of balance with body/heart/spirit. How can one examine a life without balanced input from all modalities? I am, of course, not asserting that “MONA” (sorry, I can’t quite write it without quotes) is responsible for wars and such; it is merely a particularly egregious example of abstract thought gone haywire. i.e., the capacity to take “MONA” seriously (the thinking that something that isn’t real is real) is the same capacity that allows us to ignore reality in favor of a concept (this person is in ideological disagreement with me and so deserves to die). That may seem an exaggeration, but it is quite a logical extension.

I’m not sure who is bashing Ms Davison–maybe you are referring to the original blogger’s statement that she’s been attacked on her blog since acquiring the imaginary can of air. It seems, however, that she is made of sterner stuff than those who are moved to defend her purchase. According to our blogger, she has noted that said can of air has value as a marketing vehicle, if not value of any other sort. Either way, you did state that “…MONA isn't an exception to that, and I think whoever wants to fund it should feel free to,” and I was merely pointing out that we are all free to. As soon as you put yourself in the public arena, you can be sure that some people will disagree with you; to be sure, the freedom to buy imaginary cans of air is not at issue. Anyway, I was questioning the source of your statement that “crafters get offended by conceptual art.” I can’t identify anyone in the thread either before or after your post who expressed offense. Criticism, yes; offense, no. Perhaps you have found yourself in situations where people have questioned whether or not your work is “art,” and the discussion pushes a button. I’m no art historian, but it seems to me that when you break it down, there are only two people who have something at stake in the discussion of It’s Art/It’s Not Art: the art dealer, who can charge infinitely more for something that’s Art versus something that’s Not Art, and the artist, who may derive ego gratification from creating Art rather than Non-Art. I’m not an Etsy seller, but I’ve done my fair share of buying, and the abstract concept of whether something is or is not Art has never influenced my buying decision, nor has it ever even occurred to me. Whether something is beautiful, whether it is well-made, whether I want it or need it, whether it would bring joy to one of my loved ones, whether I have the opportunity to support an individual in buying something that I would usually buy mass produced… all these have at times been factors in my buying decision, but never the abstract thought “Is this Art?” I wonder how many Etsy sellers feel they have something to prove along these lines. My thorough investigations into seller profiles and featured sellers on the blog seem to reveal a majority who are putting their hearts into what they do; I’ve not seen much evidence of interest in playing the Art/Non-Art game, but that could be my own bias.

Ummm...interesting.

perfect gift for someone whose walls are a bit crowded.

I love that in this case, the buyer also becomes the artist. By buying the artwork, a person is mentioned/credited alongs side the artist - if not more than the artist, for participating in the art concept. Maybe it is the buyer who should be credited here, more than the artist, due to their level of involvement and comitment to the idea and concept

Some how it seems crazy but I guess when you shop online theres always an element of mystery until you have a finished product in your hands. People are of course entitled to spend their money however they like, reminds me when Ebay first got started and people were selling glasses of water and cans of beans bean by bean.

i think the root point is always simpler than what we initially observe. if MONA's purpose and whole art is not creating any art at all, then yes. it has most definitely been done before. i did it for 8 hours last night. But, they did create a conversation about art and what art is, which i think most everyone (who's written here at least) agrees is relevant. there is no possible yes or no answer to this debate, and that's seems to be the whole point of this MONA movement. art's purpose is to invoke thought and emotion, yes? then in the end, though i'd like to disagree, i think MONA itself is a kind of art, though not necessarily what they marketed themselves to be.

Art is individual. The room reminds me of a yoga studio. And, allowing people to create their own imagined canvas is interesting. But, this entire concept amazes me and reminds me that any idea can come to life and create a profit.

Good read. It seems like a prank, or maybe just a really good scam. This site gave it a funny twist http://www.themortonreport.com/celebrity/notables/james-franco-and-the-museum-of-non-visible-art/

Now everything has been done. Somebody had to officially do this and it will have its spot in art history. Art does reflect the time we live in and in this case it does not have much to say about that which is appropriate, considering...

Interesting to say the least.

Oh, boy! (as I roll my eyes) And probably some versions of this has been done already.

I have no problem with the concept. What I have a problem with is putting so much money in to what is essentially nothing. I hope they're giving grants to artists who are making some kind of tangible work.

ugh my comment got erased when i went to submit it :( isfour: But essentially, what I wrote was that I think your logical extensions are a little silly - the real world is based in, you guessed it, reality, and the commenters around us show that most people "get" that this is sort of a joke exhibit. But that doesn't mean it can't be thought about deeper, more philosophically! Think about it this way: arts & crafts are like a how-to book, conceptual art is like a philosophy book. Both are valid, neither are that dangerous to the average person. They are not at all comparable when it comes to practicality, which is what you're trying to do; of course buyers/sellers on Etsy aren't going to convo about the philosophical implications of their purchase, it's not the right venue or audience :p You buy a handmade travel journal because you need it, not because you accept that It Is Art. (My original comparison of conceptual and crafts was to show that I think it's wrong that the people shun them as "non-art" - in practicality, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.) People are multi-dimensional, they don't just buy, they think as well - which is why it's wrong for you to say that the only two people who consider artistic merit/value are art dealers and artists. Whenever I go to an exhibit, I think it's fun and interesting to discuss with my friends the conceptual value of whatever work we're looking at. (This is the right venue and the right audience to do such a thing, I can guarantee your investigations would turn out very different in that situation.) YOU may not care to do so, but others do. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's "stupid." (Not your words but others' comments here and at the original bog.) Just because you care more about other things doesn't mean you should erase its right to exist.

I guess you have to use your imagination, but do you need a museum for it?

fan-freakin'-tastic! Wouldn't this be a great way to have a museum dedicated to literature? Where people actually read the description and then use their imagination to visualize it. I know this doesn't fall in line with "non-visual" but it would be great if people then drew what they imagined on a mural. Hopefully the descriptions are works of art.

I think it's an interesting idea. Why didn't I think of that? Raising support for invisible art...

Shshhshop–Wait, who is trying to "erase its right to exist"??? Of course, this is an absurd statement to begin with because it doesn't exist! IT'S IMAGINARY. With all of the "deep thinking" going on here, it's kind of difficult to get you to think about what's actually being said. I never called the silly "MONA" dangerous; I called the developments in humanity, our increasing lack of integration, which lead it to be taken seriously dangerous. There are many yogis and sages who've expressed it better than I can. So that you know where I'm coming from, my degree happens to be in western philosophy, so I'm not a stranger to so-called "deep thinking." You keep repeating this thing about shunning "MONA" because it's not Art, and I already answered that whether it is or is Art had nothing to do with my analysis of it, and I believe this was mentioned only by you. It seems to be your hangup. Taking part in the Art/non-Art debate might feed one's ego, might make one feel very learned, but what ramifications does it really have apart from to make some people very rich? I would really like to know the answer to this question. Why can't you just enjoy a thing without the constant intrusion of your mind? One final thought: Had an Etsy seller listed an imaginary can of air for 10k, my guess would be that no one would spring for it. When James Franco sells it, that's a different story. I really feel sad for the state of our "culture" when I hear of such nonsense.

The United States as a whole has become clueless about what is actually valuable. For most of us, money is just a number on a screen, and more can be printed when we don't have enough. Our culture outsources every shred of work, and as a result, we no longer make things. We are ignorant of the meaning of work. We purchase imaginary objects. So thank you, Etsy, for helping to bring sanity back!

I really don't know what to say about this. It is an interesting concept I guess.

Interesting place to meditate. Similar to the Rothko Chapel in Houston?

This is where art gets retarded! This is where the "fine art majors" tilt their collective noses in the air and proclaim in unison "the blank wall is profound art" sorry emptiness is not art. It is empty. Oh and I don't have school loans to pay off for my cynical opinion! :-)

Silly art for silly people. This is not art.