Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66847139

by chatmasta • 3 years ago

77 76 3 years ago

I like it. I would have bought the paintings from him but rename them to "Take the canvas and run".

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.

kawhah• 3 years ago

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.

dizhn• 3 years ago

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.

dagw3• 3 years ago

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.

ryanmcdonough3• 3 years ago

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.”

tromp• 3 years ago

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

alexvitkov• 3 years ago

At least he had the human decency to tilt the white square 5 degrees. Or maybe it was an installation error

ryanmcdonough3• 3 years ago

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.

"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?

kryptiskt• 3 years ago

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.

ryanmcdonough3• 3 years ago

He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said

Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist

exitb• 3 years ago

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.

jl6• 3 years ago

"The work is that I have taken their money."

I guess this artwork works in both directions.

hnbad2• 3 years ago

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.

michaelt• 3 years ago

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...

FridayNightTV2• 3 years ago

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

Aurornis2• 3 years ago

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?

Daviey• 3 years ago

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.

karmakaze• 3 years ago

The artist forgot to follow through on the work's title "Take the Money and Run."

mg• 3 years ago

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.

x86hacker1010• 3 years ago

Maybe you are thinking of Dadaism?

fodkodrasz4• 3 years ago

Classic postmodern. Shows the lack of something. Usually the lack of originality and the lack of any value.

coldtea3• 3 years ago

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...

phailhaus• 3 years ago

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.

lancesells• 3 years ago

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.

dreamcompiler• 3 years ago

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

eldritch_4ier• 3 years ago

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.

isolli• 3 years ago

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.

SenAnder• 3 years ago

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?

devmor• 3 years ago

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!

erehweb• 3 years ago

Maybe "conceptual art" https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art - this link from the Tate includes Klein and Duchmap.

grodin• 3 years ago

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.

circuit10• 3 years ago

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?

InitialLastName• 3 years ago

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...

genman• 3 years ago

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.

dist-epoch• 3 years ago

You forgot the most recent one - the taped banana.

neontomo• 3 years ago

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.

ycombinete• 3 years ago

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.

photoGrant• 3 years ago

Sherry Levine.

It’s not low effort.

Unless that’s what you brought as a consumer of the art!

bj-rn• 3 years ago

Found object maybe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object

ak_111• 3 years ago

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.

bowsamic• 3 years ago

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"?

theragra• 3 years ago

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

jamespo• 3 years ago

you could commission him?

cainxinth• 3 years ago

"Art is what you can get away with."

-Andy Warhol

OldGuyInTheClub• 3 years ago

Highly recommend the short story "Baxter's Procrustes" by Charles Chesnutt.

https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Chesnutt_Baxt...

Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

Related Stories