3 ms·
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.
by ketanmaheshwari 5y ago
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 5y agoThe 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 5y agoPartially 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 5y ago> 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 5y agoImagine 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.