-
I find this so interesting.. definitely gave me a good reason to procrastinate while working from home!
I'm struggling to decide on whether an invisible sculpture can be art or not. I love the reasoning behind it and the idea, and the simple fact that the artist said it cannot be moved from it's original place even with the tape removed.
However, to me I don't think I can class this as art. Art to me is something to view and making me feel a certain way, and even though he has portrayed a way of feeling about this piece of 'art', there is nothing for me to view.
So, love the idea and the question but there is nothing to see!
0 0 0 0 0 0 0-
That’s so interesting about the Mona Lisa, I’d never even though of how the two link but now you’ve pointed it out it’s so obvious! And art is often about the context and the space in time when the piece was created and the story behind it always holds more value than the piece as it exists currently. Going off from that I can’t help but be reminded of Rauschenberg’s Erased de Kooning and how the absence of the art is what makes it so special, thank you for showing this perspective!
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
what do you mean? how is Mona Lisa famous for what you don't see? I think comparison is a bit extreme . I would love to understand your point of view on this
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Erased de Kooning is completely different. It is an act of destruction; an act of overposing to the master- it is an act of defiance . I don't think it has to do with the aura that surrounds it. Mona Lisa has an aura - but what makes it so famous is not just its aura. For Salvatore garau, he is only selling us the aura, the sublime of art. I mean, this is kinda extreme . ALL art has an aura. I don't agree with this comparison
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
