>He told TV2 Nord on Monday the museum had made "much, much more" money than what it invested thanks to the publicity surrounding the affair.
Fair's fair. If the artist has to return the money, the museum should have to refund any additional ticket sales.
The museum is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Apparently they're powerful enough to take it.
Everyone at the museum who was involved in this case should be ashamed. Sadly yet another case of the legal system used as a sledgehammer against those with less power.
I actually think it works even better like this, as a description of modern society.
The rule is that Capital hands you a salary and you do the work; if you try to "take the money and run", the State will order you to refund Capital, acting as its enforcer. No matter what, in the open you can't beat them: capital will always profit and end up on top.
The "service" was art. The museum got art. The supplier delivered.a
In fact they got more than they bargained for. Do they really think it would've made "much, much more money than what it invested" if the artist had produced the other concept?
That backstory is the art. The museum happily profited off it. However the emperors don't like having their clothes mocked (and they definitely don't like it when you reverse power roles), so the artist needed to be 'taught a lesson' and more importantly 'made an example of'.
I wonder how much the museum paid in legal fees to recover less than $77k?
I didn't mention anything about oppression, just that the State enforces one's relationship to Capital. Which is objectively true. The fact that you reflexively went for some talking point is one of the reasons for the poor state of political philosophy in modern societies.
If I read this correctly, the money wasn’t meant for the artist, but was rather meant to be put into the artwork itself as banknotes (which would then presumably be owned by the museum). It seems to be a pretty clear case of fraud masquerading as art, and the artist admits as much in the title of the work.
'Art made out of money' is conceptually played out; this is much more interesting. In this case, the art isn't sensible matter on the canvas, but the intelligible matter of its creation.
Clearly, it was effective on the museum director, if he laughed at loud and put it on display, and it's captivating in general if it being newsworthy is any proof.
I'm not saying the museum is wrong for trying to get the money back, just that this isn't fraud. The artist requested materials to make a piece of art, the museum granted the request, and the artist utilized those materials by way of 'taking the money and running'. Take that away and the piece doesn't exist anymore - it's just a blank canvas, which is as tired as it gets.
8 comments
[ 331 ms ] story [ 5059 ms ] threadFair's fair. If the artist has to return the money, the museum should have to refund any additional ticket sales.
The museum is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Apparently they're powerful enough to take it.
Everyone at the museum who was involved in this case should be ashamed. Sadly yet another case of the legal system used as a sledgehammer against those with less power.
The rule is that Capital hands you a salary and you do the work; if you try to "take the money and run", the State will order you to refund Capital, acting as its enforcer. No matter what, in the open you can't beat them: capital will always profit and end up on top.
The oppression!
In fact they got more than they bargained for. Do they really think it would've made "much, much more money than what it invested" if the artist had produced the other concept?
That backstory is the art. The museum happily profited off it. However the emperors don't like having their clothes mocked (and they definitely don't like it when you reverse power roles), so the artist needed to be 'taught a lesson' and more importantly 'made an example of'.
I wonder how much the museum paid in legal fees to recover less than $77k?
Clearly, it was effective on the museum director, if he laughed at loud and put it on display, and it's captivating in general if it being newsworthy is any proof.
I'm not saying the museum is wrong for trying to get the money back, just that this isn't fraud. The artist requested materials to make a piece of art, the museum granted the request, and the artist utilized those materials by way of 'taking the money and running'. Take that away and the piece doesn't exist anymore - it's just a blank canvas, which is as tired as it gets.
Well I guess the artist can give the money back?