[HN Gopher] Art or heist? A Danish artist took $84k and sent a m...
___________________________________________________________________
Art or heist? A Danish artist took $84k and sent a museum 2 blank
canvases
Author : cube00
Score : 122 points
Date : 2021-09-29 18:02 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| blablabla123 wrote:
| In school it used to be a running gag to speculate how astonished
| the philosophy teacher would be if someone would hand in an essay
| with just the word "No".
| Waterluvian wrote:
| "It is a breach of contract, and breach of contract is part of
| the work,"
|
| Being sued or prosecuted will also be part of the artwork.
| pugworthy wrote:
| Legal proceedings in the court room can at times be
| performance.
| int_19h wrote:
| Case in point.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzODx3WLarQ
| weego wrote:
| It's a piece of tangible performance art, which is unusual and
| not the medium they expected.
| jld wrote:
| He should send another invoice for the extra services!
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Modern art is money laundering. It is crazy how it has taken over
| the entire industry.
| mrb wrote:
| The canvases would have been ten times better (IMHO) if the
| artist had sloppily and quickly written "Take the Money and Run"
| on them, and maybe even left the brush and paint on the floor
| below the canvas
|
| But then, maybe I'm wrong, and that's why I'm not an artist :)
| bazhova wrote:
| > "The work is that I have taken their money," Haaning stated.
|
| I hope he enjoys the second half of his art - legal action
| dylan604 wrote:
| HN timing is so weird:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28683497
| scns wrote:
| In Germany, an art collective rented the plot adjacent to the
| plot where Bjorn Hocke, a far-right politician from the AFD lives
| and installed a miniature holocaust memorial there. All lawsuits
| against it have been dismissed. Text is in german, DeepL [1] may
| be of help.
|
| [0] https://politicalbeauty.de/holocaust-mahnmal-bornhagen.html
|
| [1] https://www.deepl.com/translator#de/en/
| legitster wrote:
| I went to an exhibit on modern art at SAM. It was full of ironic
| pieces, like a gauge that measured its own distance to the floor
| and ceiling (and had some sort of ironic name about literalism or
| something). The centerpieces was a big blank canvas with the
| words "I could have done that" scrawled across it in marker.
|
| I stick to historic exhibits for the most part now.
| [deleted]
| panda888888 wrote:
| But modern art is funny! There's a difference between art and
| craft. If you prefer craft, that's fine. At least in my book,
| modern art isn't about craft. It's about making you think.
| Sometimes it's stupid, overdone, plays into tropes too much,
| etc., but usually it invokes an emotion.
|
| For example, consider Banksy's painting that shredded itself.
| That's hilarious! The people who accidentally left a pineapple
| in a museum, only to return later and find that it had been
| covered with a glass case? That's equally funny. And in this
| instance, props to the artist for deciding to take the money
| and run. It fits the title of their work.
| m_ke wrote:
| My worst date ever was a trip to MOMA, I had to go to a museum
| as an assignment for an art history class. The girl must have
| thought I was a weirdo for taking her there and we pretty much
| stopped talking after that night.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I mean, yeah. Context my friend. If you go on a date, it
| should be for the shared experience of whatever you're doing.
| Taking someone with you while you do homework is not that.
| It's no different than bringing a date to work to watch you
| work. Few dates will actually appreciate that experience.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| It's unfair not to mention how much some historic art sucks. I
| went to the Tate Britain and a large section of the historic
| works were 'aristocrat pays someone to paint his family very
| flatteringly but with obvious lighting and perspective flaws'.
| If you take a step back and imagine a celebrity today
| commissioning the same kind of artwork, it becomes painfully
| obvious how egotistical and unworthy of praise these works are.
|
| See also: displaying unfinished sketches. Nice for a collector
| but let's not pretend there's any artistic value in it.
| beambot wrote:
| I once rode in an original Model T. Ride was horrible: super
| slow, very uncomfortable, and the handling was ghastly. But
| clearly we don't judge "ancient" developments exclusively by
| modern standards...
|
| Artwork of old was commissioned and preserved by the wealthy.
| All of the old works are rare (relatively), fairly impressive
| for the time, and some are true masterpieces.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It depends on your view point. A lot of art is critized for
| the artist's abilities and techniques to create the art and
| much less for the subject matter. The David could have been
| any random dude, but it is the ability of accurately
| recreating that randome dude in stone that makes it
| impressive. Some of the painted pieces that are extremely
| large and take up an entire museum wall are impressive just
| for the shear accomplisment. Yes, it helps that it looks so
| real as well.
|
| >See also: displaying unfinished sketches. Nice for a
| collector but let's not pretend there's any artistic value in
| it.
|
| If you imagine those sketches being underneath the painting
| and realizing that those sketches were how the artist worked
| on creating the actual piece is interesting in the same way
| watching behind-the-scenes videos on how a movie was made are
| interesting--to those that are interested in the first place.
| Similar to Show HN articles on some use of fad language to
| redo something else already in existence. If you have no
| interest in that language or the thing being made, they
| aren't interesting.
| biztos wrote:
| > See also: displaying unfinished sketches.
|
| Depending on the artist and the sketch, I'm quite happy to
| see it also. Sketches can provide a lot of super interesting
| context about other works. And sometimes they're quite good
| by themselves.
|
| There's also no "value" in watching, say, Novak Djokovic
| practice his serves. Unless you care about tennis, in which
| case you'd probably watch with rapt attention.
|
| Same thing, basically, for sketches by good and/or important
| artists.
| tomcam wrote:
| IMHO unfinished sketches by great artists can be amazing
| little stories unto themselves. They can give you insight
| into the creation process of the artist, which fascinates me.
| And sometimes they are even more fresh and dynamic than the
| finished work.
| lelandfe wrote:
| The Tate Modern has a huge room filled with what seems to be
| detritus left over from mounting art - ladders, glue, tape, and
| so on. Your first reaction is that they are switching out an
| exhibition.
|
| It's only when you read the placard that you find out that each
| item had been painstakingly carved out of something like resin
| and painted over a span of years.
|
| Nearby is an empty room, where they actually _are_ switching
| out an exhibition.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| So you visited the Tate Modern and, out of all the pieces,
| the one you recall an anecdote about was the obnoxious
| detritus? Seems like it did the job.
| user-the-name wrote:
| So this either says something about the entire field of modern
| art and the huge number of artists creating it.
|
| Or it says something about you.
| Neil44 wrote:
| For me modern art is about my reaction to the piece, and the
| insight and illumination into myself that that gives. So
| looking at a piece is in a way looking at myself.
|
| Modern art can also be a way of communicating feelings and
| ideas that language cannot express very well.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| If an object can induce a feeling - any feeling, even of
| disgust then I would class it as art.
|
| doesn't mean it's good art though, that's extremely
| subjective
| int_19h wrote:
| Garbage in the middle of the street can induce a feeling of
| disgust, but I don't think that makes it art. Even if
| somebody were to put a fence around it and stick a sign
| that says "this is art" on that.
| wyager wrote:
| You may enjoy the recent episode of the Good Ol Boyz podcast
| with Dr Hans Georg Moeller on Profilicity. It's an in-depth
| analysis of the phenomenon you're describing.
| Xylakant wrote:
| The most memorable art exhibitions for me are modern. There's a
| lot of trash, but one particularly memorable piece is (or was,
| it's been a while) hanging right on top of the exit door of the
| Berlinische Galerie. It's just a unpretentious ticker that
| scrolls a single sentence in red dots: "Do you feel better
| now?". True, anyone could have done that. But the placement,
| the simplicity, the style resonated with me in that moment so
| that I remember that ticker better than Mona Lisa in Paris.
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| Yup, same for me. It was a TV in a room with a video on a
| loop displaying a woman in a mirror who was ripping our her
| hair and repeating "art must be beautiful".
|
| First thought it was dumb, but then i caught myself thinking
| about it. This is 4 years ago now and I still remember it,
| while the Rembrandts and Monets have never provoked any
| feeling or thought in me.
| elisbce wrote:
| You are confused of being memorable with being artistic or
| valuable. I could scare you with a big TV screen showing dead
| bodies, and that would be the most memorable thing you see
| that entire month.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Post Modern art is terrible. At least with early modern art
| (think Vienna Secession or other movements ~100 years ago),
| most of the artists had classical training and moved into
| modern art. Now they are just all terrible. The devaluation of
| aesthetics in favor of meaning make it unapproachable to those
| with no context on the subject, and unappealing to even those
| with context.
|
| Contemporary artists with any skill now work in classical
| styles, illustrations, or graphic design.
|
| EDIT: I should clarify by Post Modern I mean a specific genre
| of art focused on deconstruction. Not all contemporary art is
| Post Modern, and there are many genres alive today that are not
| Post Modern.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > unapproachable to those with no context on the subject,
|
| OTOH, if you do have context on the subject, it can be
| profound. It's a bit like certain gamer groups who have
| subreddits and generate tons of content that outsiders don't
| get (Warhammer, Genshin Impact, Hololive, ApexLegends...
| these are few groups I do not understand but they seem to
| generate a ton of their own internal content.)
|
| Aesthetic art is a product of a particular need, and it will
| always have admirers. IKEA sells tons of pretty art. People
| will flock to Versailles to see the Mona Lisa. An occasional
| brave soul will do a long-viewing of Rothko. That kind of art
| is for the masses, and historically commissioned pieces in
| public have been just that. And it hasn't gone away: murals,
| sculptures in parks, installations at large government
| buildings.
|
| What people are focusing on here is completely different.
|
| It's a bit ignorant to criticize art that is outside your
| context. I have the right to say "Warhammer memes are
| childish bullshit," but it is ignorant.
|
| Much like vegan-bashing, people love to rip on "post modern"
| art without really knowing much about it. Perhaps there is a
| legitimate claim that some hot new artist is "classically
| untrained" so they "actually" suck. Is that true if their art
| resonates with the current culture? I say, "no."
|
| EDIT: I have attempted to study "postmodernism" many times
| over the last 30+ years (for fun) since I graduated college.
| I've failed every time. I don't like to use the term anymore
| because I can't really explain it to any real depth other
| then banal platitudes like "nothing has meaning."
|
| EDIT2: I find "take the money and run" to be a brilliant
| piece of contemporary art. It is so on the nose for today's
| culture: conniving, ironic, duplicitive, a rip off, ... I
| think it spurs conversation about the monetary value of art
| that has been brewing for decades. Heck, even the monetary
| value of what museums should EXPECT from an artist. That's a
| big one I'd like to talk about. What if EVERY artist did this
| from now on? How do you prevent it? Should you? How do
| artists that put in massive physical effort feel about this?
| Screwed?
| SkipperCat wrote:
| Agreed. Post-modern art by itself means nothing to me, but
| when I learn about the artist and their journey to create a
| piece of work, I really enjoy it. It's like they say - its
| not about the destination, it's about the journey.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| The classic Duchamp urinal I think is brilliant because
| it was so goddamn scandalous and just flipped so many
| assumptions upside-down. Being first matters IMHO. But
| over many decades it has been so set-upon by bigger
| thinkers (and GRIFTERS) and creators that it is exactly
| what the other poster said about "inaccessible".
| (Although I do love me some Zizek.)
| chrismcb wrote:
| If your art requires context to be understood, then it is
| broken.
| dexwiz wrote:
| I usually classify Post Modern art as deconstructional art
| post WWII. It was initially fueled by the ennui of two
| world wars, and then drifted into cries about consumerism.
| Either way you get a pretty bleak outlook.
| Leparamour wrote:
| >It was initially fueled by the ennui of two world wars,
| and then drifted into cries about consumerism.
|
| And also bankrolled by the CIA as a psy-op tool during
| the Cold war.
|
| https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-
| excerpt...
| collegeburner wrote:
| That figures... nothing that stupid happens without the
| govt being involved
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Now I hear it used in the context of skepticism of
| authority, "nothing can be known as true or false" in the
| current political climate and it scares the bejeebers
| outta me. I don't understand how that aspect of PM
| differs from classical fallacies of appeal to authority
| -- and I probably never will. :( -- but I agree, it feels
| bleak.
| spoonjim wrote:
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria
| okwubodu wrote:
| > The devaluation of aesthetics in favor of meaning make it
| unapproachable to those with no context on the subject, and
| unappealing to even those with context.
|
| Your description of this phenomenon is perfect to me. I find
| it interesting that nearly the opposite has happened in some
| areas of music, but you still hear that the lack of "meaning"
| is what makes modern music terrible.
| im3w1l wrote:
| It's an interesting comparison actually. I think it's more
| common for people to say they don't like classical music
| than that they don't like modern music. There is such a
| huge variety of music being made that there is something
| for everyone. Whether that's hiphop, death metal or
| electronic.
|
| But here's the thing, the same thing actually goes for
| drawing. There are a huge number of people drawing various
| stuff, such that anyone could find something drawn recently
| that they would like. Whether that's murals, concept art,
| manga, street caricatures or memes.
|
| But here's the kicker: Music isn't defined to be the music
| played by the annointed elite. But art _is_ defined as
| drawings ( /sculptures, etc) made by the annointed elite.
| staplers wrote:
| But art is defined as drawings (/sculptures, etc) made by
| the annointed elite.
|
| This is false. It's worth distinguishing art vs popular
| art. I know plenty of poor artists that won't be in
| history books/museums that make very meaningful art,
| often eventually stolen by privileged artists.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| > I think it's more common for people to say they don't
| like classical music than that they don't like modern
| music.
|
| By "modern music", do you mean pop, jazz, or classical?
| Each of these (and many more genres, e.g. country) all
| have "modern" versions. But the idea of "classical" music
| is music that was itself popular when it was contemporary
| but has stood the test of time, so people continue to
| listen to it and enjoy it 500 years later. The same with
| visual arts, architecture, etc.
|
| It is the same thing with literature. Some works flash
| into popularity, but 50 years later very few have heard
| of them or read them.
|
| And so this is fundamentally a question of whether you
| are chasing fashion or permanence. There are good and bad
| aspects of both -- when you chase fashion you will find
| something unique to your time, but which just a couple of
| decades later people often laugh at or don't bother with.
| If you chase permanence, you have to make some
| concessions to the taste of previous generations but will
| benefit from hearing only the best of the very best.
|
| It is the exact same situation with art, or anything that
| can be preserved across time. You have to choose between
| something disposable but more closely suited to your
| needs or something permanent but less suited to your
| specific needs because it is also enjoyed by others who
| are very different from you.
| int_19h wrote:
| Classical music was popular _with the elites_ when it was
| contemporary. But those elites were a tiny minority of
| the overall population.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| No, Classical music was popular _period_. But the elites
| consumed most of the professionally performed music as it
| was expensive, whereas other people had to rely on
| friends and families who could play an instrument
| themselves, or go to a place where there was a free or
| cheap performance, for example Church. But just because
| the elites consumed most output of professional musicians
| did not mean that ordinary people did not consume the
| output of amateur musicians, especially in their own
| families, where it was not uncommon to perform music
| after a meal or during family gatherings.
|
| Many families would have at least one member who could
| play the piano or the violin - more often the violin.
| Here is a noted British musicologist reporting on his
| travels through Europe:
|
| "I crossed the whole Kingdom of Bohemia from south to
| north, and being very assiduous in my enquiries, how the
| common people learned music. I found out at length that
| not only in every large town, but in all villages, where
| there is a reading and writing school, children of both
| sexes are taught music"[1].
|
| Yes, many of these violins made by local luthiers were
| cheap but by modern standards they were serviceable. In
| terms of people who did not own their own instruments,
| they heard organs and choral pieces in Church -- the
| Church was the primary provider of public music at the
| time, and sacred music was until recently the most
| commonly performed type of music, and indeed the
| development of Western music began with sacred music (the
| Byzantine empire was responsible for elaborating on the
| music of classical greece and giving us much of western
| music theory).
|
| When public operas began to open they were wildly
| popular. Mozart wrote for one of these. This is much like
| the situation with restaurants. Originally the elites had
| private chefs that cooked for them. Over time, these
| chefs began to open their own business and cook for the
| public. Then over time, the food got cheaper with casual
| dining.
|
| But this is not to say that people didn't eat traditional
| meals, they just cooked for themselves, as amateur cooks.
| So with music, they performed for themselves as amateur
| musicians. It is interesting to note that the first uses
| of copyright were not recorded music but sheet music,
| that people would pass around, copy, and perform for
| themselves.
|
| But "free" public music -- e.g. apart from a wealthy
| benefactor paying for a public concert or something
| outside of a Church -- did not become widespread until
| the advent of the radio.
|
| [1] The Present State of Music in Germany, the
| Netherlands and United Provinces. London 1775: newly
| edited by Percy A. Scholes as An 18th Century Musical
| Tour in Central Europe and Netherlands. London Oxford
| University Press, 1959) Cf. Chapter X, p. 131,32
| biztos wrote:
| It's true that some art -- and most big-P Postmodern cultural
| products -- require a lot of prior knowledge of their context
| in order to get much out of them, and I agree this is hostile
| to a general audience.
|
| But first, some of it does manage to be engaging and even fun
| ; and second, I blame the universities and not the Art World
| per se. There's a lot of very idea-centric work in the
| museums and in private collections, but the stuff that
| (probably) makes your eyes roll is not a big part of it. And
| the business of speaking in a priestly tongue unintelligible
| to the laity is absolutely a product of our (mostly US)
| universities in the last 20 years or so. Art critics within
| that caste do their best to promote artists of the same caste
| -- and have done for ages -- but it only goes so far.
|
| That said, this:
|
| > Contemporary artists with any skill now work in classical
| styles, illustrations, or graphic design.
|
| ...is obviously and demonstrably false for, I dunno, say >=
| 90% of all professional artists making a living at it today.
| Which leaves you with a pretty circular definition of "skill"
| I guess.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| > The devaluation of aesthetics in favor of meaning make it
| unapproachable to those with no context on the subject, and
| unappealing to even those with context.
|
| This is an incredibly concise and effective summary of the
| situation. I agree completely. I think aesthetics have really
| been devalued in the modern world. Even comparing distant
| lands like Ancient Rome or Ancient China, there are still
| commonalities in their approach to aesthetics compared to
| modern culture.
| sjg007 wrote:
| Oh to appreciate the aesthetics of pornography.
| int_19h wrote:
| It exists, e.g. DOMAI.
| guardiangod wrote:
| While I don't know anything about art to disagree with you,
| I'd imagine people say the same thing no matter if it's 100,
| 500, or 2000 years ago.
|
| I suspect the situation is the same with old appliances- only
| the Good Stuff survives the test of time.
| tokai wrote:
| They definitely said that about Monet and the
| impressionists in general. Lazy brush strokes and blobs of
| paint. People find it very pretty though and reproductions
| hang everywhere.
| dexwiz wrote:
| The defining character of impressionists, was their
| ability to paint in the moment. Prior to this period,
| mixing paints was difficult, and most art was produced in
| a studio. Industrialization gave readily mixed paints
| that lasted. This gave people the ability to paint
| outside, but since they would only have a few hours to
| capture a scene due to lighting, it encouraged
| essentially "Speed Paints." From there, its all about
| being able to capture as much of the subject in the least
| amount of effort.
|
| Art and technology and extremely linked. We take things
| like photo realistic paintings for granted, but these are
| only possible because artists can paint from a color
| photograph. Vermeers are celebrated because he was able
| to paint in a photo realistic manner before photos. But
| he was only able to do that with a complex setup of
| mirrors to essentially project an image on the canvas (or
| the eye using a split view setup).
| Jugurtha wrote:
| Still, I could not have painted like Monet or Sisley. I
| can, however, pick a marker and a canvas and write "I
| just did that" to reply to the "I could have done that"
| asshole. Then I'm sure someone will come up and
| retroactively insert some meaning into that piece of shit
| "Ah, yes... That is the purpose of that piece. It is to
| be discussed in a world where meaning itself is to be
| discussed. You understood it perfectly".
|
| How about someone take a massive literal dump just under
| that metaphorical crap that says "I could have done
| that". Technically, someone looking at the two together
| could say the same thing about both, or mistake the piece
| of canvas as a label for that actual steaming piece of
| art.
| imagine99 wrote:
| I think you may have fallen prey to a common
| misconception about art: Art - not only the modern kind -
| has and always very much had a "first mover advantage".
|
| It's not about the fact that you couldn't paint coloured
| squares on canvas Rothko-style. Quite possibly you could.
| It's that he did it _first_. There are tons of artists in
| certain Chinese villages who have perfected the art of
| pointilism possibly almost as good as Seurat (certainly
| indistinguishable for an amateur 's eye), yet their
| paintings sell for a couple dollars, not a couple
| million.
|
| You could also easily extrapolate your argument about
| scribbling on the canvas to the realm of software
| development and argue that creating e.g. Facebook or
| Amazon or Wikipedia is really nothing special. A few
| lines of code will get you a usable MVP. I'm sure you
| could have done it (I'm saying this completely
| unironically). However you didn't. Someone else did it
| first. There may be dozens or hundreds of copycats but
| the original idea and/or the successful marketing of said
| idea is all that counts. The rest is noise (sometimes
| rightfully, sometimes not).
| Jugurtha wrote:
| > _I think you may have fallen prey to a common
| misconception about art: Art - not only the modern kind -
| has and always very much had a "first mover advantage"._
|
| There is no first mover advantage in a piece that says "I
| could have done this". Michael Scott from The Office
| probably did it first.
|
| > _You could also easily extrapolate your argument about
| scribbling on the canvas to the realm of software
| development and argue that creating e.g. Facebook or
| Amazon or Wikipedia is really nothing special._
|
| That would be quite an extrapolation, though.
|
| > _A few lines of code will get you a usable MVP._
|
| There was a documentary about Google on a french tv
| channel (M6) called Capital. The moment the narrator said
| "Discover how they built a fortune with a few lines of
| code", I left.
|
| >I'm sure you could have done it (I'm saying this
| completely unironically). However you didn't. Someone
| else did it first.
|
| I'll argue to your side: I'm not sure I could have done,
| but I understand what you're saying and I often say this
| to people who say "I _thought_ of that idea " when they
| see something successful. I always retort: "Yes, I
| thought of Uber as well. Have I built it? No. We all have
| ideas we don't materialize".
|
| Here's what I just did. Magritte style piping hot finger:
| __________________________________________ |
| | | _________________________________ |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | I could have done that. | |
| | | | | |
| |_________________________________| | |
| | | |
| | Ceci n'est pas de l'art. | |
| | |__________________________________________|
| im3w1l wrote:
| Nobody would give two shits about me or my painting if I
| drew colored squares first.
|
| Actually let me propose an experiment: Take two people:
| One a famous artist, and one an unknown complete amateur.
| Someone who hasn't held a brush since primary school.
| Have them both paint 6 pieces each in a unique but low
| technical skill style. Then randomize which artist signs
| which piece.
|
| The success of the artworks will be strongly correlated
| with who is claimed to have drawn it, and uncorrelated
| with who actually did.
| corobo wrote:
| Well yeah, appreciating art and owning art are different
| things. Owning art is an investment, you want the
| possibility of selling it to someone else with interest
| later. Can't do that if it's not famous
|
| How do you measure the success of art? I'd go with
| eyeballs per year, you've picked sales figures, someone
| else would probably say a third thing
| im3w1l wrote:
| Sorry for the ninja edit there, I kinda went back and
| forth, settled on a more neutral success.
| Jugurtha wrote:
| Yes. There was that anecdote of someone bringing a
| painting and being told it was _clearly_ a fake after
| examination because the real one was exposed in a museum.
| TL;DR: the one exposed in the museum was the fake, the
| real one was stolen, and that 's the one the person
| brought.
|
| Double-blind wine experiments where people talk about
| earthy-mushroomy-fruity tones, then have the label
| revealed are fun.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Wine's are a little bit different imo, because there is a
| definitely legit basis there just the border with
| bullshit and marketing is fuzzy.
|
| My take away from those double-blind experiments isn't
| that it's all made up, but rather that people need to
| practice more rigor.
| johncena33 wrote:
| > It's that he did it first.
|
| By that logic Kim Kardashian is also a great artist.
| Because she is the first to popularize idea of being
| famous for being famous. As long as people, who claim
| Pollock is a great artist, also admit that Kim Kardashian
| is a great artist, I am good with the argument.
| jdmichal wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that was Paris Hilton?
|
| In fact, from Kim Kardashian's wiki page:
|
| > Kardashian first gained media attention as a friend and
| stylist of Paris Hilton...
|
| And from Paris' page:
|
| > Credited with influencing the revival of the famous for
| being famous phenomenon throughout the 2000s,[6] Hilton
| was, for a number of years, one of the world's most
| ubiquitous public figures.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Art has a long history, and aesthetics have changed over
| time. Techniques like Chiaroscuro and Contrapposto come and
| go. Highly developed cultures usually have highly developed
| art and vice versa. Art is usually a balance of ideas and
| aesthetics. No matter the contemporary techniques, the
| subject matter has usually been immediately recognizable by
| a lay viewer, and symbology can be decoded by the
| specialist. For example: is there a dove flying through a
| window and Mary is in the picture? That means God is
| impregnating Mary. But even without knowing that you can
| still understand the picture is of Mary and is religious in
| nature.
|
| Post modern art is probably the most extreme example of
| destruction of aesthetics in the name of pure ideas.
| Sometimes people say modern art can express feelings that
| are inexpressible by language. But I argue that either 1)
| there was no meaning to begin with and its all self-derives
| and 2) it requires being a specialist to understand the
| art. Its the ultimate appeal to ego since no interpretation
| is wrong, since there was nothing really intended.
| routerl wrote:
| I upvoted both you and the OP, for making good, honest
| observations.
|
| And for relating stories about thoughtful, controversial
| engagements with art. Because that's kind of the point of
| art.
|
| The Mona Lisa isn't "art" anymore; it was once, and now it's
| a pretty artifact with a lot of historical significance. But
| that's not art.
|
| Art is the kind of thing that makes educated people say, in
| public, "that's not art". And, thus, by its existence and the
| reception to its existence, true art makes our conversations
| about art richer, more emotional, and (over time) more
| precise. And once all of the nuances of this conversation are
| exhausted, we need new art.
|
| Which is why the Mona Lisa isn't art. At least not anymore.
|
| And if you disagree with that, then we need to have a deep
| conversation about art, and history, over the course of which
| both of us will have hopefully learned new things about both
| art and history.
|
| Art is a recursive question, not an engineering problem.
|
| Edit: I should point out that this comment is intentionally
| recursive.
| jalgos_eminator wrote:
| Honestly this is one of the most ridiculous things I've
| read on HN, and yes I mean that perfectly literally. Its
| almost as if this comment is itself a piece of performance
| art, because the Mona Lisa is (sometimes literally) the
| standard for all art (at least paintings).
| drnex wrote:
| I like to think that when you dismiss something as being
| ridiculous, you lose the possibility of integrating it
| into your body of knowledge. Cheers.
| routerl wrote:
| Agreed, it was a ridiculous comment. I did, however, try
| to design that ridiculousness to make a point.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| For those of us who aren't subtle enough, could you state
| your actual point?
| routerl wrote:
| Ok, you know how people thought Cantor was crazy because
| he proposed that there were both countable and
| uncountable infinities? In retrospect, those of us who
| are mathematically inclined can understand the value of
| Cantor's work, since it gave rise to set theory and many
| more things that are clearly useful and important.
|
| But they weren't always _clearly_ useful and important.
| The value of Cantor 's work was once so _not_ clear that
| many serious and influential people dismissed and
| attacked it.
|
| Would you like to _not_ be one of those people? Then you
| should probably practice talking about why certain art is
| bullshit, and certain other art isn 't bullshit, because
| it will strengthen your "is this bullshit" muscles, so
| you can more expertly apply those muscles to really
| important questions, like "are self-driving cars feasible
| within the next few years", or "do covid booster shots
| make sense".
| chrismcb wrote:
| Art doesn't suddenly stop being art. I think what you are
| saying is if people stop discussing a thing then it stops
| becoming art. Art doesn't require making conversations
| about art richer. If that were true, the Mona Lisa would
| still be at because we still discuss it as art. But art is
| still art, even if people stop talking about it. And if a
| learned person days it isn't art, it probably isn't art.
| routerl wrote:
| > The Mona Lisa isn't "art" anymore; it was once, and now
| it's a pretty artifact with a lot of historical
| significance. But that's not art.
|
| followed closely by
|
| > Art is the kind of thing that makes educated people
| say, in public, "that's not art".
|
| My point lies very much between the lines.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| No one gives a shit about classically trained painters beyond
| upvoting their work on reddit, and even commercial
| illustrators struggle to make ends meet. The most stable
| avenue for working in graphic design is advertising.
|
| It seems everyone has an opinion on what makes good art, but
| no one wants to fucking pay for it. The top 1% of artists are
| basically con artists trying to trick the rich into impulse
| buys.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| >impulse buys
|
| Or financial instruments for all kinds of shenanigans, to
| include tax evasion using freeports to park nearly
| arbitrarily-priced assets (the best kind!).
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Modern art is a great example of how semantics don't change
| reality. You can call modern art art, but the average person
| will never put something like the pieces you described in the
| same category as something like a Michelangelo painting.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| The average person is (perhaps unfortunately) not the judge
| of art. Duchamp signed a urinal and stuck it in a museum over
| a hundred years ago, and the average person certainly didn't
| consider that art, and today the stupid thing is absolutely
| in art history textbooks with Michelangelo.
|
| The praise is different, to be sure. Michelangelo's work is a
| achievement, technically, historically, and artistically.
| Scrawling "my kid could do this" in marker and hanging it in
| a museum isn't trying for any of that, but it does provoke
| thought and emotion and discussion, and that's what it's
| trying successfully to do. The artist does not expect anyone
| to say "wow, such amazing technical talent, they must have
| studied calligraphy for years, they are surely Michelangelo
| reborn." Is it great art? Well, I'm not an art critic, I
| dunno, but if I saw it in a museum it'd probably make me
| think and feel more than some random landscape.
| biztos wrote:
| > signed a urinal and stuck it in a museum
|
| ...sort-of, but not really, but sure it's in museums now.
| More than one!
|
| However, this would have been the smallest of art-
| historical footnotes had Duchamp not then gone on to do the
| rest of the things he did, and we put it in the art history
| textbooks because of its (minor) place in one of the most
| ground-breaking modern artists' development and career.
|
| It's worth remembering that Michelangelo was also breaking
| a lot of rules, and was something of a rebel within the
| context of his time. His talent also developed within a
| context -- the same amazing guy, born 400 years earlier or
| later, would have been making a very different kind of art.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| Isn't that survivorship bias? Most artists from any period
| can't compete with Michelangelo. And why bother trying to
| compete with it today when we can get a Michelangelo print
| for one millionth of the price?
| dan_quixote wrote:
| Is it not just a case of survivorship bias? I'd expect that the
| historical stuff in museums is carefully (not randomly)
| selected. There were probably all kinds of crap art from the
| same era that simply got trashed.
| [deleted]
| klyrs wrote:
| Last time I went to MOMA, there was a huge composition that
| looked like an all-black canvas. Didn't look out of place. But
| when you get closer, find that it's covered in a thick layer of
| dead flies. It was a hoot. Take or leave the composition
| itself; the biggest fun was in watching other patrons' reaction
| to the piece.
|
| When I buy art, it's usually from folks who live on the street,
| not from galleries.
|
| edit: found it https://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/fly
| NautilusWave wrote:
| What a ride from "I could do that!" to "Why would anyone do
| that!?"
| ketanmaheshwari wrote:
| Given the resulting publicity and buzz this has gotten, I'd think
| the money spent was worth it from the museum's point of view.
| tokai wrote:
| The money was never to be spend, the museum loaned them to the
| artist. They were suppose to be used as the literal material
| for the commissioned art work.
| moate wrote:
| Partially incorrect. The artist was paid a fee as well as
| provided money to use for the piece and to purchase/frame it.
| This article didn't make entirely clear which of that money
| they're asking for.
| wil421 wrote:
| > Haaning signed a contract with the Kunsten, promising to
| deliver the artwork and to return the $84,000.
|
| It's pretty clear the $84k was for the art and the ~$7k was
| for the expenses to create the art.
| moate wrote:
| Imagine the (very?) likely clown shoes scenario of the museum
| holding him in breach of contract, being required to return the
| pieces, and then watching them sell for a cool million at
| auction.
|
| Look at what just happened with the Banksy shredder piece for
| example.
| usmannk wrote:
| "Haaning took the money as part of an agreement with the Kunsten,
| which says it loaned Haaning more than half a million kroner so
| he could frame the cash in a reprise of an earlier artwork."
|
| They didn't just commission him to make art. The museum
| contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which
| Haaning did not do.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| > The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of
| art, which Haaning did not do.
|
| He did make art fulfilling the concept that was discussed. The
| museum director said as much and it sounds like the art will
| still be exhibited.
|
| The problem is that the museum loaned out materials to make the
| art and the artist did not return those materials. It'd be like
| if you let a handyman borrow some of your tools, and they
| completed the job and took your tools.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| > Haaning signed a contract with the Kunsten, promising to
| deliver the artwork and to return the $84,000. The artist now
| faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan.
| 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's
| talking with him about that deadline; it also acknowledges
| that Haaning did produce a provocative piece of work.
|
| There is no problem. He will return the money (materials)
| when the deadline comes. If he doesn't by then, then they'll
| have a problem.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| They said there's a contract in place and he'll return the
| money either way. In this case the artist produced something
| else than contracted to; they took it in good fun and
| apparently got pretty good publicity out of that, and they'll
| still get the money back.
|
| Unless someone decides to turn on the lawsuit machine,
| everyone's a winner here.
| yholio wrote:
| But if they had paid him to create completely new art, it
| wouldn't have been an authentic performance of "Take the money
| and run", but a mere simulacrum. The breach of contract _is_
| the artwork.
| VanillaCafe wrote:
| Nice. And now the museum can create a piece of art in
| response called "Repercussions". (Or, maybe it was all one
| piece of art all along.)
| yholio wrote:
| I like it. They could request the judge that he serves his
| time inside the museum itself, in a cell prepared just for
| him where visitors can observe his daily routine. He will
| not only participate in one of the greatest modern art
| performances of all time, but he will indeed _become_ the
| artwork.
| ineedasername wrote:
| And at the end they could burn the artist and issue an
| NFT.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| An NFT? More like one NFT for every of his screams while
| he's burning to death, and they wouldn't record any so
| the screams can't be duplicated.
|
| 1 year later... the artist is alive and well, enjoying a
| mojito on a Cuban beach with a satisfied smile.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| That would actually be pretty interesting as art, I think.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| It's been done...
|
| https://www.antepavilion.org/hackney-fight
| pchristensen wrote:
| I beg you, if you have gotten this far, watch this 10
| minute video about the above link -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8xhdL8BPvU
|
| It's one of the most entertaining things I've seen this
| year.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Clearly it is art _and_ heist. But the law doesn 't care too
| much if your crime is a work of art.
| pishpash wrote:
| We can call it "art crime".
| rvbissell wrote:
| No, no, it's "crime art".
| sjg007 wrote:
| Hmm maybe fraud? Breach of contract at most? Not a crime.
| Arguably he delivered something. It could also been just an
| invisible artwork.
|
| Was the money supposed to be in the artwork as a medium?
| Maybe there's a Bitcoin address on the frame or something.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| From what I understand from the article, the museum gave him
| physical cash in which to use as the medium, along with money
| to pay for his labor (more that two times the quoted value, as
| well). In all, he received ~28 times the amount of money
| quoted. Pretty scummy thing to do, even if "provocative."
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| He has until January to return it. Although he broke the
| terms of the contract, the museum seems happy enough with the
| results so far - so long as he actually returns the money, it
| sounds like everything will be fine and non-scummy.
|
| > _The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its
| money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The
| museum says it 's talking with him about that deadline_
| tokai wrote:
| Well he has said that he won't return them at the deadline.
| But I guess he has to say that for now.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| I have a hard time believing this happened as the museum
| describes, because everyone will know this man has a large
| sum of cash sitting in his home/shop for three months.
| There had to be preparations to keep the money safe during
| the exhibition.
| yial wrote:
| After reading about this, I'm convinced that it's mostly
| marketing.
|
| He's supposed to return the money in 2022. If he doesn't, I'll be
| convinced that this wasn't just a marketing stunt after he
| thought up an alternative.
|
| He thought up a fun way to play with this concept of being handed
| so much in cash... the museum then went along with this idea.
|
| The resulting publicity, and that fact that the money is supposed
| to be returned... really seems like brilliant marketing.
| Leparamour wrote:
| Unless his newly found fame attracts another group of more
| physical extraction "artists".
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'll remember this when my AI for reproducing art is operational.
|
| I'll do the same thing as this artist, but at scale.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Art at scale is no longer art, it's kitsch.
| cjohansson wrote:
| Great idea. When I'm finished with my AI that produces AIs to
| make money I will do the same
| colpabar wrote:
| I'm honestly very surprised there's no mention of banksy's
| shredder stunt in the piece. I would have thought an artist would
| somehow try to portray themselves as being as cool as banksy.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXKE0nAMmg4
| [deleted]
| mongol wrote:
| (Google Translated)
|
| Liljevalch's benches were designed by the art gallery's architect
| Carl Bergsten, but it is the artist Dan Wolgers who has made them
| famous.
|
| Before a group exhibition at Liljevalch's in the autumn of 1992,
| in which Dan Wolgers would participate, he - as his only
| contribution - removed two of the art gallery's benches and sold
| them at Stockholm's Auktionsverk. The whole thing was a protest
| against the low exhibition fees that artists were offered by the
| country's art institutions. According to Dan Wolger's
| calculations, the rather modest sum from the sale of the benches
| would correspond to a reasonable compensation for his
| participation in Liljevalchs. He was reported to the police by
| private individuals, received a suspended sentence and a 60-day
| fine. When the letter with the court decision and payment card
| arrived, he sold it unopened to a collector and thus earned the
| fine together. Liljevalchs bought back the benches and showed
| them at the exhibition to a very interested audience.
|
| https://liljevalchs.se/butiken/tandstickor-banken/
|
| Edit: Apparently, a matchbox with an illustration of the benches
| can now be purchased in the museum's gift shop.
| mongol wrote:
| Dan Wolgers was also contracted to design the cover of the
| Stockholm phonebook (yellow pages). His contribution? His name
| and phone number on the front page.
|
| https://bukowskis.com/sv/lots/874985-dan-wolgers-telefonkata...
| smnrchrds wrote:
| He transitioned from artist to con artist.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| can't wait to see more work coming from this brave new branch
| of 'con art' :^)
| klyrs wrote:
| Can I interest you in a NFT?
| smnrchrds wrote:
| I hear he is working on the architecture of an oceanfront
| property in Switzerland next. If you move fast, you may be
| able to buy it.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| By the contemporary conception of art, this is definitely art.
| Perhaps even brilliant art.
| fullshark wrote:
| Contemporary Art - Something "clever" that appreciation of
| signals to others that you aren't a member of the bourgeois.
| dcanelhas wrote:
| I feel like there is a parallel between this and NFTs to be made
| but I don't think I understand enough about either to phrase it
| adequately. Superficially though, I believe the price paid for
| those specific canvases make them "non-fungible" (I don't think
| the museum would just throw them away now) and I guess one could
| argue that they qualify as tokens, too.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| This beats the con artistry of NFT scams any day.
| delaynomore wrote:
| This artist just one-upped Robert Rauschenberg
|
| Ref: https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/40/639
| esjeon wrote:
| The act of violating the contract (w/ the museum) itself is the
| _art_ -work here.
|
| On another side, I think this is quite a good deal for the
| museum. This story is pretty popular on the internet in many
| countries, and $84k sounds pretty cheap for an international ad
| campaign. Plus, the artist is still delivering a kind of modern
| art.
| pcurve wrote:
| Considering the publicity, I think both parties benefited. The
| only loser is general public.
|
| Having majored in fine arts, I appreciate all kinds of art forms.
| Even Banksy's work demonstrates mastery of the medium. Hell, I'd
| challenge most people to recreate Rothko's paintings.
|
| But this? It's an expression. It's a commentary. It can be a lot
| of things. But to me, it's not art.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Art if you attach the context
| outlog wrote:
| "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."
|
| - Steve Jobs/Picasso/Stravinsky/Eliot
| cm2187 wrote:
| And in my opinion this is some fuckery between consenting
| adults.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| - jareklupinski
| awb wrote:
| To be clear, they're talking about ideas and the adaptation of
| those ideas, not literally stealing cash or property.
|
| "Good artists borrow [by modifying ideas], great artists steal
| [by copying ideas]."
| alpaca128 wrote:
| The stealing part doesn't refer to directly copying ideas (I
| mean what great artist would do that?), more how good artists
| instead are able to use other works as inspiration, "make it
| their own" and put their spin on it.
| awb wrote:
| The way I always understood it is that good artists put
| their spin on it.
|
| Great artists realize perfection when they see it and just
| copy it, without trying to "improve" it, usually from
| lesser known, less successful artists so they get away with
| it.
| gowld wrote:
| Right. In Jobs world, that meant stuff like taking existing
| Chinese tech and making it into something with worldwide
| wow/cool factor.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Jobs world, that meant stuff like taking existing
| Chinese tech_
|
| It was a reference to Apple apocryphally stealing "the
| mouse, windows, icons, and other technologies that had
| been developed at [Xerox] PARC" [1].
|
| They didn't copy an existing product. They deprived Xerox
| of the market into which to launch their own product.
|
| [1] https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html
| ooer wrote:
| You got me curious. Which Chinese tech did he steal to
| make the iProducts with?
| falcor84 wrote:
| </That's The Joke>
| alpaca128 wrote:
| This quote doesn't have anything to do with literal theft,
| though:
|
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
| deeblering4 wrote:
| Depends on your outlook towards intellectual property
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| At least he had the decency not to leave his excrements [1]
| behind, claiming it to be an art object, like that other guy. So
| I guess it is not the worst example of contemporary art.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
| sakopov wrote:
| This reminds me of a man who ate the exhibit at a Miami museum
| consisting of a banana taped to a wall and then proclaimed that
| it was an art performance [1]. The exhibit was supposedly going
| for $120K-150K.
|
| [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/performance-artist-
| eats...
| kyleblarson wrote:
| Well it works for Hunter Biden so why not?
| hedora wrote:
| I'm hoping some smart ass offers to buy it from the artist for
| $100,000, but only on the condition that he not return the money
| to the museum.
|
| Clearly the museum got a good deal; good luck showing damages in
| court! Mwuhahah.
| TheRealNGenius wrote:
| Well would you look at that, according to my criteria [1] that's
| not art!
|
| [1] https://wndr.xyz/posts/9fjM1tOJO7MWX4fYw3AU2Q==/what-s-
| art-a...
| jboggan wrote:
| "And then you get an artist / He says he doesn't want to paint at
| all / He takes an empty canvas / And sticks it on the wall"
|
| - Dire Straits, "In The Gallery" (1979)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-v6JeolLzw&t=8s
| dmitrygr wrote:
| This is hilarious on so many levels
|
| My suggestion to him: Turn in a new artwork next week: the money
| shredded.
|
| Call it "you greedy bastards"
|
| It can be explained as a revolt against the existing power
| structures in the financial world, where the poor are only
| noticed when they cause unrest.
| timwaagh wrote:
| I think it's brilliant. Hope they let him keep it.
|
| ...But why all the commentary on social inequality? It's more
| than a little... rich
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| While walking around Germany I found a truck that appeared to be
| a traveling dadaist art museum. It was unattended and you could
| walk in and see a bunch of shelves with exhibit labels. The
| shelves were all empty. I was not sure if that was intended. Or
| if perhaps it was actually a traveling museum and it's pieces
| were being exhibited somewhere.
| aussiegreenie wrote:
| Those two works have generated more publicity and awareness of
| the artist than anything he/she has produced. The Gallery should
| be ecstatic.
|
| Personally, my guess he/she has doubled the value of his/hers
| existing works.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| With enough press like this, the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art
| might make that money back in visitors. Art can be just as much
| about absurdity as it can be about talent. Just look at Marcel
| Duchamp.
| stuff4ben wrote:
| Good reminder to never pay upfront for work (or art in this
| case).
| cfup wrote:
| Can't wait for this kind of art in NFT form! /s
| vvarren wrote:
| Be careful what you wish for
| https://opensea.io/collection/take-the-money-and-run
| onemoresoop wrote:
| To me all this cleverness has become a bit boring. I am aware
| that there is a story behind all these "masterpieces" and the
| story makes the art more or less, but it's become such a
| predictable trick-fest that I stopped paying attention. It's not
| even an original statement, it's been done countless times
| before. Am I missing anything?
| klyrs wrote:
| Upon some reflection, I have decided that this is indeed art.
| It's clearly in the succession of Dadaism; a critique of art
| critique. It opens up for a _very_ peculiar legal challenge.
| Every blank canvas sold after today can be seen as a derivative
| or blatant copy of this work. I 'd love to see this artist sue a
| producer of blank canvases for royalties. Alternatively, if he
| didn't make the frame and stretch the canvas himself, the
| manufacturer can likewise sue the artist. _Please_ let this make
| it as far as the courts. I 'll make popcorn.
| anonu wrote:
| The publicity towards the museum is worth every penny of that
| $84k.
|
| The best part is the work is fairly unreproducible now. Few
| artists will dare deliver blank canvases.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I think this is brilliant. Art is supposed to inspire emotion and
| tell a story. Thought doing it in a different way, this piece
| quite literally demonstrates the purest form of "story behind the
| art".
|
| No doubt the artist will be giving the money back, this seems to
| be too perfect not to be the plan from the getgo. My only
| question is, was the museum aware of this plan from the start and
| is the "omg where's out money" is just manufactured for the
| marketing.
|
| Either way whether just for marketing or the entire point of the
| art piece, brilliant.
| anonu wrote:
| Why would you be so sure the money will be returned?
| PerkinWarwick wrote:
| This man is a genius. We've hit Peak Modern Art.
|
| Honestly, you can't buy this kind of PR. Do a dozen more, number
| and sign them on the back, profit.
| jayspell wrote:
| Two things I would say about this...
|
| 1.) It's honest 2.) It's better than most modern / contemporary
| art
| bhouston wrote:
| Gotta love artists doing the unexpected and then presenting it as
| art. It is sometimes a fine line, because if you go too far,
| people may not buy it. But then maybe you make a media discussion
| about it, and you get more famous!
| gowld wrote:
| When anything anyone does is "art" just because someone reacts
| to it in some way, it's just "person" not "artist".
|
| My farts are art. I'm a fartist.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| There have been such artists before.
|
| _Le Petomane_
|
| _Joseph Pujol (June 1, 1857 - August 8, 1945), best known by
| his stage name Le Petomane ( /l@'pet@meIn/,[citation needed]
| French pronunciation: [l@petoman]), was a French flatulist
| (professional farter) and entertainer. He was famous for his
| remarkable control of the abdominal muscles, which enabled
| him to seemingly fart at will. His stage name combines the
| French verb peter, "to fart" with the -mane, "-maniac"
| suffix, which translates to "fartomaniac". The profession is
| referred to as "flatulist", "farteur", or "fartiste".[1]_
|
| _It was a common misconception that Joseph Pujol passed
| intestinal gas as part of his stage performance. Rather,
| Pujol was allegedly able to "inhale" or move air into his
| rectum and then control the release of that air with his anal
| sphincter muscles. Evidence of his ability to control those
| muscles was seen in the early accounts of demonstrations of
| his abilities to fellow soldiers.[2]_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane
| [deleted]
| ralfn wrote:
| Especially with an idea as original as this.
| cosmotic wrote:
| I suspect this was sarcasm? This is certainly not novel.
| Ansil849 wrote:
| > This is certainly not novel.
|
| Which other artist has done it?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| https://www.moma.org/collection/works/114939
| thrwaway9871 wrote:
| Every con artist ever. Pun intended.
| szarnyasg wrote:
| Casey Neistat did something similar in 2012, although he returned
| something resembling a commercial video and not a blank canvas.
|
| > After arriving at an agreed-upon treatment with Nike for its
| latest commercial, director Casey Neistat literally took the
| money and ran-filming a trip around the world on Nike's dime, and
| presenting the footage as the ad.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg
|
| [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/1680524/how-director-casey-
| neist...
| gowld wrote:
| He created at actual ad, not just a resemblance. Ads are
| usually arbitrary fluff plus a logo.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> Ads are usually arbitrary fluff plus a logo.
|
| Just like superhero movies.
| dpiers wrote:
| It's a 4 1/2 minute video promoting the product that has been
| viewed 32 million times. Considering it likely cost Nike <$50K
| and average YouTube ad CPM is ~$3.50, it may be one of the most
| successful social media ads Nike has ever produced.
| akyu wrote:
| They paid him to direct an ad and he directed an ad. You are
| falling for the marketing my friend.
| max46 wrote:
| it's a very different situation. The money the artist stole
| never belonged to him, it wasn't his salary or a budget he was
| allowed to spend on the fabrication of the art. He had a
| specific contract and he was paid to take that 84k$ and lay it
| on a canvas to replicate a previous art piece he had done. The
| cash was supposed to be returned to the museum after.
| Leparamour wrote:
| So more along the lines of embezzlement?
| maldeh wrote:
| "Art is what you can get away with."
|
| - Andy Warhol
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-29 23:03 UTC)