Invisible: Art About the Unseen 1957-2012

Financial Times“A brave experiment...” Rugoff is an inventive curator and has curated the show as primarily a participatory performance piece. Rugoff seems to me to be playing out conceptual art’s endgame in a show as intriguing as it is frustrating…

Evening Standard“Playfully questions the foundations of art...” This is not a show for the cynic but I think it places great faith in its audience, lending us an active role in forming the art. By giving us little to see, it actually makes us look harder...

The Arts Desk“Conceptual art with masterful dexterity...” Invisible is well worth a visit and, fear not, the gallery is not empty. Here, art often relegated to the confines of avant-garde cliques is demystified without sacrificing its theoretical bite...

The Telegraph“You will feel their presence...” The show is almost entirely without visual interest – so if that’s what you’re after, go to the Royal Academy. But everything else about it is fascinating. artists have used invisibility in so many different ways - some successful, some not...

The Observer“A surprisingly various show...” This show puts its faith in the audience, in our willingness to think and our openness to ideas. But it cannot quite escape the trap of its own theme for not one of these works achieves total invisibility...

The Independent“Hard to see the show's point...” It is as though, faced with years of low-brow comparisons of conceptual art with the emperor's new clothes, artists have decided to pay their critics back in kind. Put nothing on a plinth, they say, and see how the idiots like it...