8 ms·

"Haaning took the money as part of an agreement with the Kunsten, which says it loaned Haaning more than half a million kroner so he could frame the cash in a r

"Haaning took the money as part of an agreement with the Kunsten, which says it loaned Haaning more than half a million kroner so he could frame the cash in a reprise of an earlier artwork." They didn't just commission him to make art. The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which Haaning did not do.

lapetitejort 5y ago
From what I understand from the article, the museum gave him physical cash in which to use as the medium, along with money to pay for his labor (more that two times the quoted value, as well). In all, he received ~28 times the amount of money quoted. Pretty scummy thing to do, even if "provocative."
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  He has until January to return it. Although he broke the terms of the contract, the museum seems happy enough with the results so far - so long as he actually returns the money, it sounds like everything will be fine and non-scummy. > The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline
  - tokai 5y ago
    Well he has said that he won't return them at the deadline. But I guess he has to say that for now.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    I have a hard time believing this happened as the museum describes, because everyone will know this man has a large sum of cash sitting in his home/shop for three months. There had to be preparations to keep the money safe during the exhibition.
yholio 5y ago
But if they had paid him to create completely new art, it wouldn't have been an authentic performance of "Take the money and run", but a mere simulacrum. The breach of contract is the artwork.
- IshKebab 5y ago
  Clearly it is art and heist. But the law doesn't care too much if your crime is a work of art.
  - pishpash 5y ago
    We can call it "art crime".
    - rvbissell 5y ago
      No, no, it's "crime art".
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Hmm maybe fraud? Breach of contract at most? Not a crime. Arguably he delivered something. It could also been just an invisible artwork. Was the money supposed to be in the artwork as a medium? Maybe there’s a Bitcoin address on the frame or something.
    - IshKebab 5y ago
      I don't know where you're from but in Denmark fraud is a crime!
      - sjg007 5y ago
        Yes maybe it is fraud it would depend on the contract. But he delivered something and did they accept it as in take possession?
- VanillaCafe 5y ago
jdavis703 5y ago
> The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which Haaning did not do. He did make art fulfilling the concept that was discussed. The museum director said as much and it sounds like the art will still be exhibited. The problem is that the museum loaned out materials to make the art and the artist did not return those materials. It’d be like if you let a handyman borrow some of your tools, and they completed the job and took your tools.
- pilsetnieks 5y ago
  > Haaning signed a contract with the Kunsten, promising to deliver the artwork and to return the $84,000. The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline; it also acknowledges that Haaning did produce a provocative piece of work. There is no problem. He will return the money (materials) when the deadline comes. If he doesn't by then, then they'll have a problem.
pilsetnieks 5y ago
They said there's a contract in place and he'll return the money either way. In this case the artist produced something else than contracted to; they took it in good fun and apparently got pretty good publicity out of that, and they'll still get the money back. Unless someone decides to turn on the lawsuit machine, everyone's a winner here.

lapetitejort 5y ago

From what I understand from the article, the museum gave him physical cash in which to use as the medium, along with money to pay for his labor (more that two times the quoted value, as well). In all, he received ~28 times the amount of money quoted. Pretty scummy thing to do, even if "provocative."

pavel_lishin 5y ago
He has until January to return it. Although he broke the terms of the contract, the museum seems happy enough with the results so far - so long as he actually returns the money, it sounds like everything will be fine and non-scummy. > The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline
- tokai 5y ago
  Well he has said that he won't return them at the deadline. But I guess he has to say that for now.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I have a hard time believing this happened as the museum describes, because everyone will know this man has a large sum of cash sitting in his home/shop for three months. There had to be preparations to keep the money safe during the exhibition.

yholio 5y ago

But if they had paid him to create completely new art, it wouldn't have been an authentic performance of "Take the money and run", but a mere simulacrum. The breach of contract is the artwork.

IshKebab 5y ago
Clearly it is art and heist. But the law doesn't care too much if your crime is a work of art.
- pishpash 5y ago
  We can call it "art crime".
  - rvbissell 5y ago
    No, no, it's "crime art".
- sjg007 5y ago
  Hmm maybe fraud? Breach of contract at most? Not a crime. Arguably he delivered something. It could also been just an invisible artwork. Was the money supposed to be in the artwork as a medium? Maybe there’s a Bitcoin address on the frame or something.
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    I don't know where you're from but in Denmark fraud is a crime!
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Yes maybe it is fraud it would depend on the contract. But he delivered something and did they accept it as in take possession?
VanillaCafe 5y ago

jdavis703 5y ago

> The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which Haaning did not do. He did make art fulfilling the concept that was discussed. The museum director said as much and it sounds like the art will still be exhibited. The problem is that the museum loaned out materials to make the art and the artist did not return those materials. It’d be like if you let a handyman borrow some of your tools, and they completed the job and took your tools.

pilsetnieks 5y ago
> Haaning signed a contract with the Kunsten, promising to deliver the artwork and to return the $84,000. The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline; it also acknowledges that Haaning did produce a provocative piece of work. There is no problem. He will return the money (materials) when the deadline comes. If he doesn't by then, then they'll have a problem.

pilsetnieks 5y ago

They said there's a contract in place and he'll return the money either way. In this case the artist produced something else than contracted to; they took it in good fun and apparently got pretty good publicity out of that, and they'll still get the money back. Unless someone decides to turn on the lawsuit machine, everyone's a winner here.