Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66847139
83 comments
> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?
Well, the context is they paid him to reproduce previous works, such as "An Average Danish Year Income, 2010" [1] which was literally comprised of 278500 Danish Kroner, mounted and framed.
If he's contracted to produce something, and decides to produce something different instead, it seems pretty clear the money wasn't his.
Interestingly, he's not the first artist to frame cash and put it in an art gallery - for example K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash" [2]
[1] https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation#Money:_A_Major_Bo...
Well, the context is they paid him to reproduce previous works, such as "An Average Danish Year Income, 2010" [1] which was literally comprised of 278500 Danish Kroner, mounted and framed.
If he's contracted to produce something, and decides to produce something different instead, it seems pretty clear the money wasn't his.
Interestingly, he's not the first artist to frame cash and put it in an art gallery - for example K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash" [2]
[1] https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation#Money:_A_Major_Bo...
> K Foundation's money-as-art works, "Money: A Major Body Of Cash"
You cannot mention this without also mentioning "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
And yes, they really did do it. (This was the same blokes who, at the top of the UK charts, as an artistic statement deleted their entire music back catalogue, meaning you could no longer buy their music. In 1992, that really did mean no more sales of their music and no more profit for them.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF
You cannot mention this without also mentioning "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
And yes, they really did do it. (This was the same blokes who, at the top of the UK charts, as an artistic statement deleted their entire music back catalogue, meaning you could no longer buy their music. In 1992, that really did mean no more sales of their music and no more profit for them.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF
I love how Wikipedia lists the budget of the film as one million pounds.
> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?
The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process.
This is a straightforward breach of contract case.
Or maybe the museum could claim their lawsuit was also an art piece entitled “The Power of Contract Law” and then all of the critics of this decision would be happy again?
The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process.
This is a straightforward breach of contract case.
Or maybe the museum could claim their lawsuit was also an art piece entitled “The Power of Contract Law” and then all of the critics of this decision would be happy again?
I think you've misunderstood the intent of why someone commented on the museum director being amused. I think the understanding is that if the person who commissioned the work was "happy" with the result, then the artist had fulfilled his contract by supplying work that the commissioner was "happy with", despite it not being as they thought they were getting.
However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to the artist, so it wasn't his to retain. THAT is the reason that the reaction of the director isn't relevant.
However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to the artist, so it wasn't his to retain. THAT is the reason that the reaction of the director isn't relevant.
Yes that money was not payment but a prop to the artpiece.
He got to keep his fee, what he didn't get to keep was the cash that he was lent that was supposed to be part of the installation.
But it makes the art worse if the money's returned. It's JUST an empty canvas then, not even worth keeping on the wall.
While the idea was slightly amusing, it was always just empty canvases. The artist just also breached contract and committed theft on the side, which is an unjustified crime that does not in any way enhance said blank canvas.
The criminal individual was not even punished, he just have to return the stolen goods and still get paid. If the museum had not chosen to display the canvas, I feel it would be fair to require damages on top of the money returned in full, without pay deducted and with interest.
The criminal individual was not even punished, he just have to return the stolen goods and still get paid. If the museum had not chosen to display the canvas, I feel it would be fair to require damages on top of the money returned in full, without pay deducted and with interest.
I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit.
The fact that it made some people mad and they don't understand, or at least appreciate it, is not proof that it's the highest form of art, but it is absolutely consistent with it.
Violating expectations is very much one (of many) purpose of art, and holding up "contract" doesn't change that. That's just a handy club that happens to be available in this case and you're willing to wield it to club something you don't like. Another legal c word is "context". No one can argue something like this wasn't always a possible interpretation, complete with prior examples.
So the court and some sufficient number of the voting population aren't artists and the only thing they see is money and a canvas? That is the least interesting and least valid proof of worth or validity of a piece or work of art ever. Just like all the people who say "It's just splatters, I could do that!". That only makes them common and in possession of a club, not right.
The fact that it made some people mad and they don't understand, or at least appreciate it, is not proof that it's the highest form of art, but it is absolutely consistent with it.
Violating expectations is very much one (of many) purpose of art, and holding up "contract" doesn't change that. That's just a handy club that happens to be available in this case and you're willing to wield it to club something you don't like. Another legal c word is "context". No one can argue something like this wasn't always a possible interpretation, complete with prior examples.
So the court and some sufficient number of the voting population aren't artists and the only thing they see is money and a canvas? That is the least interesting and least valid proof of worth or validity of a piece or work of art ever. Just like all the people who say "It's just splatters, I could do that!". That only makes them common and in possession of a club, not right.
> I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit.
Crime is unacceptable and is not to be glorified as art.
Especially not this kind of lowly and outright pathetic attempt at crime.
Crime is unacceptable and is not to be glorified as art.
Especially not this kind of lowly and outright pathetic attempt at crime.
Zomg crime!
They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed.
Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons?
Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.
They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed.
Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons?
Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.
Stealing 100k USD is a very significant crime, and I find it very ridiculous that you'd compare that to jaywalking.
The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpenter then just ran off with the money without doing anything. Or if you hired an individual and gave them access to company accounts for the purpose of doing their job, which they then embezzled and ran away with.
The money was loaned for a contractually described use-case with a return date. Walking away with it with no intention to return - and trying to keep it afterwards when sued - is nothing but theft of a significant sum.
The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpenter then just ran off with the money without doing anything. Or if you hired an individual and gave them access to company accounts for the purpose of doing their job, which they then embezzled and ran away with.
The money was loaned for a contractually described use-case with a return date. Walking away with it with no intention to return - and trying to keep it afterwards when sued - is nothing but theft of a significant sum.
They provided a similar (and vastly more popular) artwork and it was displayed. Even works that are not supposed to be creative works differ from the original order and courts often don't decide on a full refund if it provided utility.
I find it kind of strange that they don't want to keep these talking points but I think the court should have decided what value they already got out of using them if they don't permanently accept them.
I find it kind of strange that they don't want to keep these talking points but I think the court should have decided what value they already got out of using them if they don't permanently accept them.
[deleted]
The court did decide that the artist could deduct ~6k USD as commission when returning the stolen money.
The limited traction they'd get from this story and empty frames would already have played out - that 100k USD can do more good as commission to other, actually skilled artists for future works than padding one greedy criminal's pockets...
The limited traction they'd get from this story and empty frames would already have played out - that 100k USD can do more good as commission to other, actually skilled artists for future works than padding one greedy criminal's pockets...
No. The crime/contract angle is not the most important element here. It's just a club that one side of a dispute happens to have, so they get to win the fight with their bigger club. It doesn't make their argument the more valid one.
I'm glad the judge disagrees with your... Creative interpretion of contract and criminal law not being the "more valid argument".
Yes yes, we got that. You are glad to let law not only defend but actually define right and wrong.
Well I have some news you may want to sit down for. Law is just a tool. A tool that was designed, manufactured, and finally wielded by people.
It gets worse. There is no such thing as any tool that was designed perfectly, or functions perfectly, or wielded perfectly.
We use it only because it's all we got and the best we can do. Chaos is worse. But all we got and the best we can do is actually quite garbage.
It's not worth your unthinking worship, and your unthinking worship does not make the world a better place.
Well I have some news you may want to sit down for. Law is just a tool. A tool that was designed, manufactured, and finally wielded by people.
It gets worse. There is no such thing as any tool that was designed perfectly, or functions perfectly, or wielded perfectly.
We use it only because it's all we got and the best we can do. Chaos is worse. But all we got and the best we can do is actually quite garbage.
It's not worth your unthinking worship, and your unthinking worship does not make the world a better place.
He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist
It seems that was basically what it was. He had an earlier 2010 work called "An Average Danish Year Income":
https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je...
He was asked to reproduce it for 2021 using the money given
He was asked to reproduce it for 2021 using the money given
> unless the contract specifically said
That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The artist broke the terms of the contract.
You don’t think they’d hand him a giant pile of cash, ask nicely for him to give it back, and hope for the best, do you? These commissions will have clear contracts about deliverables, ownership, and rights assignment.
That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The artist broke the terms of the contract.
You don’t think they’d hand him a giant pile of cash, ask nicely for him to give it back, and hope for the best, do you? These commissions will have clear contracts about deliverables, ownership, and rights assignment.
That was the point of the lawsuit. But also seems like the law, museum, and lots of people here missed the point too.
The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.
The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.
> The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork
More amusing if the artist burnt the money and used the ashes to create an artwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
" K Foundation Burn A Million Quid....... compiles stills from the film, accounts of events and viewer reactions, and an image of the brick that was manufactured from the fire's ashes. A film consisting of a static three-minute shot of the brick, "This Brick", was shown at London's Barbican Centre prior to Drummond and Cauty's [The K Foundation] performance as 2K in the same year."
More amusing if the artist burnt the money and used the ashes to create an artwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
" K Foundation Burn A Million Quid....... compiles stills from the film, accounts of events and viewer reactions, and an image of the brick that was manufactured from the fire's ashes. A film consisting of a static three-minute shot of the brick, "This Brick", was shown at London's Barbican Centre prior to Drummond and Cauty's [The K Foundation] performance as 2K in the same year."
[deleted]
"The work is that I have taken their money."
I guess this artwork works in both directions.
I guess this artwork works in both directions.
I think the argument of whether he delivered art is a red herring. They commissioned a specific piece of art and he failed to deliver on that. Arguably he did deliver a work of performance art but apparently the contract was fairly specific so it's reasonable that they expect to have the money returned after deducting his expenses.
The artist forgot to follow through on the work's title "Take the Money and Run."
This reminds me of a common theme in the art world. I wonder if there is a name for it. Maybe "Low effort art"?
Examples off the top of my head:
John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence.
Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal which he simply purchased from a store.
Yves Klein exhibited 11 paintings that were exactly the same. They were simply blue, no structures or subject. But he priced them all differently.
I can't remember the name, but I recently read about a photographer who exhibited nothing and then made photos of confused faces during the exhibition.
I can't remember which art prize it was, but there once was an art price which asked artists to "make a piece of art that represents your country". And a female artist wrote back "Dear jury, just give me the art prize for my reputation. You can keep the money in return. This would also represent my country as we have so much corruption here". And she won.
Examples off the top of my head:
John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence.
Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal which he simply purchased from a store.
Yves Klein exhibited 11 paintings that were exactly the same. They were simply blue, no structures or subject. But he priced them all differently.
I can't remember the name, but I recently read about a photographer who exhibited nothing and then made photos of confused faces during the exhibition.
I can't remember which art prize it was, but there once was an art price which asked artists to "make a piece of art that represents your country". And a female artist wrote back "Dear jury, just give me the art prize for my reputation. You can keep the money in return. This would also represent my country as we have so much corruption here". And she won.
A major element of 4'33" is that it is impossible to experience silence. It was partly inspired by Cage's experience in an anechoic chamber. He'd expected to hear silence but could still hear sounds that were coming from himself (the story is that a sound engineer told him the sounds were his bloodstream and his nervous system, but I find it very hard to believe that what he heard was actually either of those things).
4'33" is intended to be "performed" for an audience, and the sounds created by the audience, and any other ambient sounds are the music. Another major aspect of the work is that it blurs the lines between composer, performer and audience. In traditional classical music, the performer interprets the written work by the composer and the audience just listens, but there's no particular reason that all music has to work like that.
4'33" is intended to be "performed" for an audience, and the sounds created by the audience, and any other ambient sounds are the music. Another major aspect of the work is that it blurs the lines between composer, performer and audience. In traditional classical music, the performer interprets the written work by the composer and the audience just listens, but there's no particular reason that all music has to work like that.
> the story is that a sound engineer told him the sounds were his bloodstream and his nervous system, but I find it very hard to believe that what he heard was actually either of those things
Have you ever spent meaningful time alone in an anechoic chamber? Your ears are similar to your eyes, in that they have mechanisms to adjust to ambient noise (/light) levels.
If you are in very deep silence for a long enough time, your brain starts trying to make sense of the sounds you are hearing (which indeed includes your blood flowing in your ears [0]), potentially causing auditory hallucinations. It can be a profound experience.
[0] https://nypost.com/2023/02/02/inside-the-worlds-quietest-roo...
Have you ever spent meaningful time alone in an anechoic chamber? Your ears are similar to your eyes, in that they have mechanisms to adjust to ambient noise (/light) levels.
If you are in very deep silence for a long enough time, your brain starts trying to make sense of the sounds you are hearing (which indeed includes your blood flowing in your ears [0]), potentially causing auditory hallucinations. It can be a profound experience.
[0] https://nypost.com/2023/02/02/inside-the-worlds-quietest-roo...
> his bloodstream and his nervous system, but I find it very hard to believe that what he heard was actually either of those things
Sometimes if it's really quiet I can hear something that seems to pulse at about the right speed that it could be blood flowing, so I don't find that very hard to believe? Or am I hearing something else?
Sometimes if it's really quiet I can hear something that seems to pulse at about the right speed that it could be blood flowing, so I don't find that very hard to believe? Or am I hearing something else?
I can definitely hear my pulse at night in bed, or after working out. This is definitely not too far-fetched.
This is exactly how you sell the bullshit - with cleverly worded bullshit that makes the reader feel smart. He was able to pull it off because he was already famous and accomplished.
What is art but cleverly composed stimulus? Idk it’s a bit silly and I think the critique that an unknown wouldn’t be able to do it is fair, but that too is true of most art
> John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence.
I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art.
But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art.
But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3
It even gave me a good story to tell once, when my kids were acting out. They sat down and listened, and have mentioned it several times since.
They also still talk about Jack the Ripper. I couldn't imagine a worse metric than "starts a conversation". The Mona Lisa started far more conversations after it was stolen - did getting stolen make it better art?
But if the alleged artists taping bananas to walls tell us that's the measure to judge art by, who am I to question their wisdom?
But if the alleged artists taping bananas to walls tell us that's the measure to judge art by, who am I to question their wisdom?
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage.
“The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to experience it - it’s self evident.
Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art. A silent song isn’t art. These are just childish, amateurish displays only enjoyed by a nihilistic culture devoid of meaning. If what you make only counts as art because it “starts a conversation” about how stupid and garbage and insulting it is, then it’s not art at all.
“The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to experience it - it’s self evident.
Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art. A silent song isn’t art. These are just childish, amateurish displays only enjoyed by a nihilistic culture devoid of meaning. If what you make only counts as art because it “starts a conversation” about how stupid and garbage and insulting it is, then it’s not art at all.
Well you seem to be confusing "what is good art" and "what is art". I vehemently disagree with saying 4:33 or the banana "isn't art", this sounds like a very narrow definition which I struggle to imagine.
I have more sympathy for the claim that it's not "good art", not particularly interesting or meaningful.
With regard to the banana I tend to agree. This was just a small provocating artpiece which doesn't bring anything to the table and is unlikely to be discussed much in ten years, let alone 70.
4:33 however is still very much discussed 70 years later and will continue to be, and that may be because it's not just a random joke but fits within the work of an important composer (John Cage) which contributed significantly to the artistic debate of what "is" music, at a time where this question was suddenly much less clear than it had been in the past (i.e. the same piece today would be much less meaningful).
I have more sympathy for the claim that it's not "good art", not particularly interesting or meaningful.
With regard to the banana I tend to agree. This was just a small provocating artpiece which doesn't bring anything to the table and is unlikely to be discussed much in ten years, let alone 70.
4:33 however is still very much discussed 70 years later and will continue to be, and that may be because it's not just a random joke but fits within the work of an important composer (John Cage) which contributed significantly to the artistic debate of what "is" music, at a time where this question was suddenly much less clear than it had been in the past (i.e. the same piece today would be much less meaningful).
While acknowledging that the question "what is art?" is an interminable quagmire, I'll say that art is any artifact that induces an emotion.
If an artist paints a wall white, and that doesn't induce any emotion, then it's not art.
If an artist paints a wall white and then tells you "hey, this is art", and that induces anger or frustration in you because you disagree, then it becomes art.
When the person above implies that this "makes you ask questions", the question in this case is "what is art?", which, as mentioned, is a contentious and interminable topic which itself arouses emotion, making it good fodder as a topic for art.
If an artist paints a wall white, and that doesn't induce any emotion, then it's not art.
If an artist paints a wall white and then tells you "hey, this is art", and that induces anger or frustration in you because you disagree, then it becomes art.
When the person above implies that this "makes you ask questions", the question in this case is "what is art?", which, as mentioned, is a contentious and interminable topic which itself arouses emotion, making it good fodder as a topic for art.
> Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”?
We did. By making it relevant here.
> Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art
The one thing baser than taping a banana to a wall is people categorically, doubtlessly concluding that it is or isn’t art.
It isn’t art for you. That this point needs to be made almost singularly means that I do consider it art, if only on the first iteration. (Anyone could have done it. But Cattelan did.) I’ll sidestep the question, too, of whether any comedy is art.
Unless we’re elevating art to a Kantian ideal like math, or arguing it’s subject to the scientific method, art has to be subjectively judged. If that’s true, anyone drawing hard lines is bloviating or attempting coercion.
We did. By making it relevant here.
> Taping a banana to a wall isn’t art
The one thing baser than taping a banana to a wall is people categorically, doubtlessly concluding that it is or isn’t art.
It isn’t art for you. That this point needs to be made almost singularly means that I do consider it art, if only on the first iteration. (Anyone could have done it. But Cattelan did.) I’ll sidestep the question, too, of whether any comedy is art.
Unless we’re elevating art to a Kantian ideal like math, or arguing it’s subject to the scientific method, art has to be subjectively judged. If that’s true, anyone drawing hard lines is bloviating or attempting coercion.
This is not entirely true, that it is low-effort. There is a lot to be said for coming up with an idea, which can take months or years, and what the idea will say about the art.
In Hong Kong, they were being detained and limited from protesting no matter what signs they were holding up, so someone had the idea of holding up blank pieces of paper. It's brilliant because it shows how oppression works - they still detained people - and the paper isn't explicitly saying anything political but still somehow it is. The implementation is easy (or low effort), but the idea itself is where the value is. And you have to come up with it.
In Hong Kong, they were being detained and limited from protesting no matter what signs they were holding up, so someone had the idea of holding up blank pieces of paper. It's brilliant because it shows how oppression works - they still detained people - and the paper isn't explicitly saying anything political but still somehow it is. The implementation is easy (or low effort), but the idea itself is where the value is. And you have to come up with it.
John Cage’s orchestral piece is actually really interesting. Last time I heard it, I was told to treat the ambient sound in the theater as the experience and it was a very interesting thing to do. Hearing people cough, shuffle around, etc. and trying to visualize where each sound came from. I recommend it at least once!
Classic postmodern. Shows the lack of something. Usually the lack of originality and the lack of any value.
You're not the audience, artists are. A lot of these pieces play with the assumptions that artists have about how works should be composed, and they turn them on their head. We might not care, but they can inspire artists to make even more creative works that we do like.
Interesting take.
Could you cite some well-known artists that are postmodern and lack originality? Jeff Koons, Cindy Sherman, Basquiat, Richter? I understand if you don't like postmodern art but not original isn't a criticism in my eyes.
Could you cite some well-known artists that are postmodern and lack originality? Jeff Koons, Cindy Sherman, Basquiat, Richter? I understand if you don't like postmodern art but not original isn't a criticism in my eyes.
For lack of originality, those examples are all very original.
For lack of artistic value, are all highly regarded by critics and art audiences.
For lack of mometary value, they've been sold for very expensive prices...
For lack of artistic value, are all highly regarded by critics and art audiences.
For lack of mometary value, they've been sold for very expensive prices...
You have a different definition of original than me, it seems.
Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right?
Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right?
Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
Are you sure you aren't attempting to judge originality with the benefit of hindsight? The fact that these works have been mindlessly copied countless times since they were first conceived and now appear trite and simplistic, doesn't make the original concept any less original.
As to the value and validity of the opinion of critics and art audience, surely the most import opinion about just about anything is the opinion of the intended audience.
As to the value and validity of the opinion of critics and art audience, surely the most import opinion about just about anything is the opinion of the intended audience.
The trick was original once. I don't know if that first was the blank canvas or the silent music track, but every other iteration is just a copy.
Regarding the fulfilment of expectation of the intended audience: I agree that it is an important aspect, but it will not make art good, merely makes it marketable. I have a feeling that museums are only serving as means of advertisements, to keep the perceived brand value of these items (and people) high. Criticising it is just as dangerous for this, as remote work is for the real-estate bubble. Criticists are stakeholders in this game, as well as the authors and the buyers. Their livelihood depends on the public agreeing to, or at least accepting the valuation of these items.
I think the real art in (post)modern art is this control of the public opinion, a large illusionistic trick. To me it seems similar to the "crypto" scam, so NFTs were kind of a perfect post-modern works of art! (when they were novel)
Regarding the fulfilment of expectation of the intended audience: I agree that it is an important aspect, but it will not make art good, merely makes it marketable. I have a feeling that museums are only serving as means of advertisements, to keep the perceived brand value of these items (and people) high. Criticising it is just as dangerous for this, as remote work is for the real-estate bubble. Criticists are stakeholders in this game, as well as the authors and the buyers. Their livelihood depends on the public agreeing to, or at least accepting the valuation of these items.
I think the real art in (post)modern art is this control of the public opinion, a large illusionistic trick. To me it seems similar to the "crypto" scam, so NFTs were kind of a perfect post-modern works of art! (when they were novel)
>You have a different definition of original than me, it seems.
Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one.
>Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
I also mean the traditional art buying public, before the 70s when modern random figures came into the picture, when money laundering wasn't needed and money laundering laws and checks where almost or entirely non-existent. Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?
>Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right?
As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?
Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one.
>Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
I also mean the traditional art buying public, before the 70s when modern random figures came into the picture, when money laundering wasn't needed and money laundering laws and checks where almost or entirely non-existent. Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?
>Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right?
As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?
> Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one.
you made me chuckle, thanks!
> Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?
Kind of? https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/
> As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?
It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and authorities, when its authorities are questioned by an outsider, it becomes so defensive...
you made me chuckle, thanks!
> Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?
Kind of? https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/
> As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?
It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and authorities, when its authorities are questioned by an outsider, it becomes so defensive...
>It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and authorities, when its authorities are questioned by an outsider, it becomes so defensive...
Not that funny in this case, since this has nothing to do with "postmodernism".
The artists that did those things we discussed were peak modernism. Dada/surealism (Duchamp), or nouveau réalisme (Klein) for example, and of course the entirety of data, lettrism, etc. have nothing at all to do with postmodernism.
In fact post-modernism, both when taken as a critical stance and as an artistic theory, was precisely against modernism (that those artists represented).
Not that funny in this case, since this has nothing to do with "postmodernism".
The artists that did those things we discussed were peak modernism. Dada/surealism (Duchamp), or nouveau réalisme (Klein) for example, and of course the entirety of data, lettrism, etc. have nothing at all to do with postmodernism.
In fact post-modernism, both when taken as a critical stance and as an artistic theory, was precisely against modernism (that those artists represented).
The only good defence of low effort art is the very likely apocryphal Picasso anecdote when a lady see a drawing and exclaimed it only took him 30 seconds.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/01/14/time-art/
I think the moral of the story that whatever the domain, you can pull the low effort stuff in a profound way provided you put in the enormous leg work needed in proving your reputation in the high effort stuff.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/01/14/time-art/
I think the moral of the story that whatever the domain, you can pull the low effort stuff in a profound way provided you put in the enormous leg work needed in proving your reputation in the high effort stuff.
Maybe "conceptual art" https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art - this link from the Tate includes Klein and Duchmap.
I saw one of the Klein Blue pieces at the Tate Modern last year.
I was surprised to find myself quite taken by it! It really is a striking colour, and an imposing presence overall!
I think about it all the time, and picture it in my house at least once a month.
I was surprised to find myself quite taken by it! It really is a striking colour, and an imposing presence overall!
I think about it all the time, and picture it in my house at least once a month.
Found object maybe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object
Maybe you are thinking of Dadaism?
Sherry Levine.
It’s not low effort.
Unless that’s what you brought as a consumer of the art!
It’s not low effort.
Unless that’s what you brought as a consumer of the art!
You forgot the most recent one - the taped banana.
> Museum director Lasse Andersson said that he had laughed out loud when he first saw the two blank canvasses in 2021, and decided to show the works anyway.
I would have thought choosing to exhibit the two pieces after inspecting them would be seen as acceptance by the museum.
I would have thought choosing to exhibit the two pieces after inspecting them would be seen as acceptance by the museum.
Headline is slightly misleading. He doesn't have to pay back his base fee and and actual material costs. What he does have to pay back is the additional money he was supposed to spend on the work, plus legal fees. When he pitched the work and got the commission he said an annual average danish salary in cash would be integrated into the work, and the museum agreed to give him this money on top of his fees. When the money wasn't used in this way in the work the museum received, the museum decided they wanted that money back.
I wonder if galleries will now have clauses like
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
“The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.”
The museum lent the artist money as well as paying him to produce the works. Accepting the art submitted does not invalidate the artist's requirement to repay the loan.
The"artist" seems like the kind of guy who would easily say the quality of "the material (cash) they gave me wasn't good so I used something else instead. So we're even."
He's quoted as saying the musemum gained a lot more in publicity without mentioning the publicity he himself got while stealing the museum's money.
He's quoted as saying the musemum gained a lot more in publicity without mentioning the publicity he himself got while stealing the museum's money.
It's certainly something to hear an artist say that the value they provided in an exchange was exposure. Usually this goes the other way around.
You know, what a great observation. That could even be part of it all. It probably wasn't an intentional point but it could be. It is so dead on.
In the original Danish article he is quoted saying the whole affair has been good for him professionally as well
"Art is what you can get away with."
-Andy Warhol
-Andy Warhol
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
And to think that these earlier Kazimir Malevich works from 1915 [1] and 1918 [2] were already considered minimalistic...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_on_White
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_on_White
At least he had the human decency to tilt the white square 5 degrees. Or maybe it was an installation error
Highly recommend the short story "Baxter's Procrustes" by Charles Chesnutt.
https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Chesnutt_Baxt...
https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Chesnutt_Baxt...
I like it. I would have bought the paintings from him but rename them to "Take the canvas and run".
I don't understand why whether or not there is paint on the canvas or not makes it a worthy piece of art. Though I guess asking for the money back is perhaps "counter art"?
[deleted]
I think museum is not right. Yes, de jure, artist is wrong. But this is kind of funny and people enjoyed this, and this is not so much money for a big museum. Europe is famous for tolerating art stuff, even if it is shocking or dumb or weird, and I like this tradition.
It would be awful for Europe as a whole to become beaurocratic and dull, because eu commission and parliament already are boring enough
It would be awful for Europe as a whole to become beaurocratic and dull, because eu commission and parliament already are boring enough
you could commission him?
"He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic," the museum's director, Lasse Andersson
So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?