This certificate acts as the legal title of ownership. In the world of high-end art, authentication documents have long held immense power. For example, a certified print by a famous photographer can be worth millions, while an identical physical print lacking a signature or certificate might be worthless. Garau’s work takes this principle to its ultimate conclusion: the certificate is not merely a document attesting to the artwork; it is the sole tangible tether connecting the owner to the conceptual piece.
Furthermore, Garau established strict operational rules for Io Sono:
-
Spatial Bounds: The work must be placed within an area measuring $5 \times 5$ feet ($150 \times 150$ cm).
-
Environment: It must be installed in a private home, away from public traffic.
-
Lighting & Climate: No specialized lighting, pedestals, or climate control systems may be used to alter the space.
These constraints act as the "sculptural parameters." Just as a sculptor defines the contours of bronze or wood, Garau defines the boundaries of empty space.
Public Backlash, Copyright Lawsuits, and Media Frenzy
The sale of Io Sono triggered widespread media coverage across global outlets including CNN, BBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Public reaction ranged from amused bewilderment to outraged indignation, with many commentators framing the sale as proof that the modern art market had lost touch with reality.
The narrative took a dramatic turn shortly after the auction when American performance artist Tom Miller filed a legal claim against Garau. Miller asserted that he had created and installed an invisible sculpture titled Nothing in Gainesville, Florida, back in 2016—five years before Garau’s auction. Miller publicly released videos detailing his work and sought legal counsel, alleging copyright infringement and intellectual property theft.
This legal feud highlighted the absurd complexities of intellectual property in conceptual art:
-
Can an idea be copyrighted? Under international copyright laws (including the Berne Convention), copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the abstract idea itself.
-
Prior Art vs. Concept: Since neither artist created a physical object, the legal debate centered on whether the specific instructions, presentation, and execution constituted protected creative expressions.
Garau remained unfazed by the controversy, using the media storm to further amplify the visibility—and paradoxical presence—of his invisible works.
The Expanding Universe of Invisible Sculptures
Io Sono was not an isolated experiment for Garau. Encouraged by the conceptual success of the piece, the artist executed several other invisible public installations around the same period, testing how audiences interact with non-existent art in public spaces.