Hayward Gallery at Southbank Centre’s Invisible art exhibition, which started today, has already provoked a wide range of reactions; curious, amused, affronted, angry, excited, intrigued…to name a few.
Some have asked why tax payer’s money is being spent on invisible art, one person asked if they can pay with invisible money and others have visited and enjoyed the exhibition:
‘Thoroughly enjoyed #invisible at Hayward, @southbankcentre — each work raises questions in philosophy of art. Loved it.’ @JustinPDJ via twitter
Curator Ralph Rugoff said in a recent interview with the BBC’s Will Gompertz that the exhibition is ‘a joke and a provocation and it’s also though about, perhaps, the idea that the creative process is very private’. At a time when contemporary art is as much about what you can see as how it makes you question and re-consider, perhaps invisible art is just art without the visual, but art all the same?
It is interesting to note that Gompertz questions whether the art works on show would be art if they didn’t have an explanation to go with them, to which Rugoff states that they would not.
Of course this makes us wonder whether anything can be art just as long as it has a meaning, but whatever your thoughts or opinions, one might say that this show has already done half its job in provoking such discussion, bringing to the forefront once again everyone’s favourite question ‘what is art?’
Filed under: Uncategorized