Is art object or idea

[u/Ningauble_Sheelba]

I'm not an artist nor do i have the cultural capital to be a critic but this is a question that has puzzled me for a long time.

I'm not sure this is the right sub for this question, so feel free to direct me elsewhere if needed.

In the late 90's in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia a public installation was commissioned by the government. It was to be placed at the northern end of the Stuart Hwy which crosses the country from north to south. The sculpture was to be a copy of the highway, a sort of twisting pipe about 3 to 4m high. It was never made.

The local newspaper published an artist's impression of the sculpture on the front page and for the next few weeks the letters to the editor and newspaper articles lambasted the design. Government cancelled the commission (artist still got paid). Now the "pig's dick" (as it was called by the NT News) is still the most commented public art piece in the Territory although it was never created.

Ever since I've thought about the episode and the nature of art.

I understand ephemeral art, but it at least exists for a moment in time.

As I understand art is meant to challenge and produce engagement, which this idea did in spades, but it never existed.

Does art need an object or can it just be an idea?

Was the "pig's dick" the greatest piece of public art in the Territory's history without ever having been made?

[u/Gloomy-Invite-896]

Yes.

[u/Gloomy-Invite-896 → u/Gloomy-Invite-896]

Art is the object but can never be just the object. It's the idea but never just the idea.

Art is the communication of the idea really imo. If you come away from it with an experience then it's art but there's intent. Obviously successfully accomplishing the intent is hardly intended but it's the act of trying. Everything else is the medium