[HN Gopher] Danish artist who submitted empty frames as artwork ...
___________________________________________________________________
Danish artist who submitted empty frames as artwork told to repay
funding
Author : sandebert
Score : 18 points
Date : 2023-09-18 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > The museum put the new artworks on display, but when Haaning
| declined to return the money, it took legal action.
|
| Fantastic. They validated his work as John Cage style art!
|
| It's not "nothing" in those frames. It's an ingenious
| representation of the essential emptimess of life and art, seen
| through the lens of the viewers interpretation.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Haaning told Danish radio at the time: "The work is that I have
| taken their money. It's not theft. It is breach of contract, and
| breach of contract is part of the work."
|
| Whoops. You weren't supposed to admit that it was breach of
| contract. You were supposed to say that by displaying your art,
| they publicly signaled their acceptance of the work. They're
| trying to get a refund on the sandwich they just ate. You could
| have told them to piss off if you hadn't characterized the work
| as a breach of contract. Or, that's the legal advice a scammer
| would follow. Instead, it's a proof of principled action that, in
| my mind, restores its status as a work of art.
|
| > He added: "I encourage other people who have working conditions
| as miserable as mine to do the same. If they're sitting in some
| shitty job and not getting paid, and are actually being asked to
| pay money to go to work, then grab what you can and beat it."
| germandiago wrote:
| He encourages...
|
| I think honest people, when we are not good enough at
| something, should pick another job and move on. That's how
| things are.
| klyrs wrote:
| If they wanted to hire a financial analyst (or whatever) to
| make a visualization of the "average $country annual wage,"
| they could have hired one. It would have occupied a spot in
| their gallery; nobody outside the walls of the museum would
| ever know or care.
|
| Instead, they hired a artiste/provocateur. He did the work
| that he is best at: he got the museum all over the
| international news, bringing significantly more value to the
| institution than if he had satisfied their small-minded
| request that he remake a previous work with insignificant
| changes. Talk about bringing value to the organization; this
| guy is more effective than most CEOs I've known.
| justtocomment wrote:
| That's how things are for _some._ Not everybody has this
| luxury.
| IshKebab wrote:
| He's an artist. He's not stacking shelves in a supermarket.
| germandiago wrote:
| In spanish we would say "caradura" to a guy like this.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| It's pretty clear from the article that he was paid ~5K USD to
| replicate a piece of work he'd already created twice before--bank
| notes arranged to demonstrate average annual income. The museum
| _also_ gave him the money that would feature in this artwork, but
| it was not intended as a payment.
|
| He's been told he has to pay back _that_ money, but not his
| artist 's fee.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| You can't display the art in your museum, and simultaneously
| claim it's not art. Youve just validated it as art!
|
| I'm not in favor of nonsense art; just against hypocrisy.
| conformist wrote:
| What if the museum were to put up a sign that said "This is not
| art"?
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| It doesn't matter if it's art or not. They commissioned a
| specific thing, and he did not make that thing. If I commission
| a painting, and the artist gives me a pencil doodle instead, I
| can admit the latter is art but still demand a refund.
|
| Additionally, he pocketed the materials they provided for that
| thing, which were not part of the commission fee. This is
| straight up theft.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| To illustrate inequality? Surely his artwork does that. Just
| not in the same rigid structure they imagined he would.
| goodusername wrote:
| The court subtracted a fee for the artwork and for the display
| of the work, which he does not have to give back - so the
| artist did in fact get paid for his empty frame artwork. Now he
| just has to give back the money he lent for the originally
| agreed upon artwork that he did not create.
|
| Seems like a fair deal, since he also got a ton of publicity
| out of it.
| belval wrote:
| > The museum provided about 532,000 krone (PS61,500) from its
| reserves to recreate artworks as well as an artist's fee of about
| 40,000 krone. But when staff unpacked the newly delivered works,
| they found two empty frames with the title Take the Money and
| Run.
|
| The title should be edited, the artist was not told to repay
| funding, he was told to return the bank notes that he was given
| as a medium for the piece (wall of bills).
|
| This is really more like an artist saying they'll make a gold
| statue from gold given by the museum, and delivering a clay
| statue (or no statue at all) after pocketing the gold.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-18 23:02 UTC)