Monday, April 2, 2012

MOMA, MOBA and now MONA

- JJ Palencar


My last post introduced visitors to the Museum of Bad Art (MOBA). In this post, we have reached a new high in artistic absurdity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Museum of Non-Visible Art (MONA). They do however accept real cash for their ”art”.

Here is a quote from their website:

Important Note: When you contribute to this Kickstarter project, you are not buying a visible piece of art! You will not receive a painting or a film or a photograph in your mailbox. What you will receive is something even more fascinating: The opportunity to collaborate in an act of artistic creation. You will receive a title card with a description of a piece of art, as well as a letter of authentication. You may mount this card on a blank wall in your home or gallery.

One individual even purchased one of these imaginary masterpieces for ten thousand dollars.
Will someone tell the Emperor that he’s not wearing any clothes?!

Update:
Looks like the individual that purchased the imaginary art for 10K has requested and received a refund : http://youtu.be/EGIvXvJwWXI

On Jimmy Kimmel Live:
http://youtu.be/UPTa5H1tHVk

Here's an update from the "Non-Visible Museum:
http://youtu.be/TH1Zy88TDEQ

Sorry no visuals this time... you'll just have to imagine them!

24 comments:

  1. I... I don't even..
    Well I hope the purpose of all this was to make some kind of point.
    The fact that someone spent money on it doesn't surprise me though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Minimalism in it's absolute form. Ha ha! Well, if yah "build" it, they will come.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If they are giving you a document that describes the piece of art, isn't one in essence just buying a piece of poetry?
    After all, it's the words on the page that are creating the image of the art in the mind's eye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently according to the radio show with the Montreal woman, they wouldn't even send her the title card/pdf describing the "art" which is why she requested a refund. Meaning it's not just non-visible, it's non-existant...

      Delete
  4. In the same time remarcable, talanted and hardworking illustrators like yourselves rarely reach such prices for their paintings (talking about the $10k). But who told us we'll be living in a just world anyways :D

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love the idea! Non-visible paintings don't take up any wall space, there's no need to bother with frames, and I can bring them with me everywhere. I think I'll invest thousands of dollars of non-visible dollar bills to build my collection.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I started working on some non-visible pieces after reading the article and now, only minutes later, I have several finished! Let the bidding begin! Only visible forms of payment will be accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see a polar bear in a blizzard.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. You mean you like the music on the MONA site, or just music in general?

      Delete
  9. Uh... your Imperial Majesty? You might want your doctor to take a look at that mole on your bum. How do I know it's there? Because you have no clothes on at the moment and you just walked by my front door.

    Writing a clever manifesto puts your art media in 'fictional writing' not in 'visual arts'.

    Elena

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sadly i work in academia and this kind of thing is all too often lauded. I cringe when thinking back on some of the conceptual projects I did in college. One was just like this where nothing was done except writing something to the effect that the viewer was the art work simply because he/she was viewing it which was nothing because they were it. I want my money back.

    ReplyDelete
  11. i think even the most anti traditional, conceptual of the conceptual, contemporary chelsea gallery types would think this is bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was checking whether or not this was posted on april 1st.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! I love this post though; gave me a laugh.

      Delete
  13. Fill + Chris: Naw, it's concept, marketing, and successful execution. And apparently pretty successful and profitable, too. The fact that it is called art is immaterial; it could be architecture or writing or mathematics or philosophy or politics or tickets to a conceptual ride to the moon. Plenty of "no clothes" artists out there with nondescript and unremarkable artwork making a good living solely from successful marketing. Kudos to the person willing to take the concept into the commercial world and keep at it in spite of the scorn; sadness to those who continue to be taken in by it. They made $16K with no investment other than a little thought and time. I wonder how much money they would have made if the fundraiser was still active. Can you imagine the creator laughing all the way to the bank? Some lessons to be learned here, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lester - Ever heard of the "Pet Rock" novelty item? It was for sale in toy stores and boutiques nationwide many years ago. The guy that came up with that idea sold millions of them.


    JJP

    ReplyDelete
  15. What's the lesson? As long as you make money it's OK? I guess sometimes I take this whole art thing a little too seriously. Maybe because I've been in the hallowed halls too long where too many verbal excuses are made for bad work. Where gigantic monetary grants are given to ridiculous projects devaluing everything we do. I don't think it being called art is immaterial. This is just another black eye for the art world. Not a big deal, the art world has had plenty of black eyes and I'm doing fine but I find it a little sad. Maybe I need to retire from the academic world and just paint, my sense of humor would probably be better.

    On the other hand the pet rock thing was cool.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lester,
    It most certainly CAN be called writing, philosophy or especially politics... but not architecture (that actually must be built), engineering or mathematics! Those actually have to work. Sadly our culture now mistakes words for deeds and shoehorning the word "excellent" into a description is thought to be the same as actually being excellent. If you say "How can I provide you with excellent service?" it's thought to be identical to providing excellent service, but without the fuss and bother of actually doing it.

    Elena

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm also fairly certain that the fact that it was James Franco's project is the only reason it got funded. It was right before his Oscar flop, when everyone was still endeared to his eccentric ways. He goes to art school?! How renaissance of him!

    To add insult to injury, I was at RISD at the time when he was scraping together this ripe turd, and there was quite a bit of upheaval about how he had straight up lifted the concept from another student who'd presented it earlier that year. Unfortunately I can't back any of that up with documentation, the hilarious and infinitely more helpful article I sent to a friend has turned into this- http://leepatrickjohnson.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/my-first-collaboration-with-james-franco/ which I cannot explain.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Interesting insight Leela.

    ReplyDelete