Artist Got Grant Money for "Invisible" Art

Sometimes all you need for something to be concidered art is that somewhere, the concept of it pisses someone off.

It has been done before, and it is kinda lame. Nevertheless, if you follow the link and read the comments, you'll get the sense that the commentators probably wouldn't consider anything any farther out than Norman Rockwell to qualify as fine art.

I wonder what else the artist did. I don't get the sense that these run-of-the-mill invisible conceptual pieces were the only artist's only, um, "work," though that seem to be the spin we're getting. Better be careful or this will be used as a rallying cry to cut any and all art funding, especially anything that isn't landscape scenes of f**king duck hunts or something.

I can't remember where, but several decades ago I saw several expensive artpieces that were labeled "still being thought out" - Some stacks of blank canvasses with on top of it a jar of canvas-preparer, a bunch of painters-brushes tubes of oilpaint, a bottle of varnish a bottle of the cheapest vodka and a package of tabacco for self to roll cigarettes.

As a hard-working and poor artist, this both disappoints and angers me. It's like slapping other artists in the face, then getting paid for it.

Emperors new clothes anyone?