4 ms·

> I thought it was deeply selfish stunt then, and still do now. Not sure if this helps you, but the money supply changes all the time. The government creates a

> I thought it was deeply selfish stunt then, and still do now. Not sure if this helps you, but the money supply changes all the time. The government creates and destroys money as needed and nobody ever says boo. What these folks did made all the other money in circulation worth slightly more, so nothing was actually lost in the way that would have been had they, say, bought houses and burned them down.

Baeocystin 4y ago
I appreciate the kind words. My anger at their actions comes from how coddled from reality they had to be to make such a choice. The levers of monetary supply and demand, of course, 'make' and 'destroy' much larger sums on a daily basis. But those aren't liquid values under control of a single person, either. Money that is, is much more salient, and more valuable. And they just pissed it away.
- leoedin 4y ago
  Did they piss it away though? That single statement was so powerful it's still causing emotional arguments about it 20 years later. Can you say that about other things people spent £1m on in 1994?
  - msla 4y ago
    > That single statement was so powerful it's still causing emotional arguments about it 20 years later. I hate this argument, because it's worse than vacuous: It makes out that art is about as meaningful as a gunshot in a crowded room. Is that art? It'll damn well get a reaction, especially from the person who was just shot. Shouldn't we demand more from art? Like actual meaning and maybe, just maybe, a positive impact on the world? Or should the next art piece be a car bomb in front of the Louvre? Yes, burning a million pounds is comparable to a gunshot because a million pounds could save a life, so destroying a million pounds might well have ended one, in terms of opportunity cost. And no, you don't get to handwave that away by pointing to other people doing things, any more than a serial killer gets to exculpate themself by pointing to tobacconists. People do things with consequences, and then have to live with those consequences, and the members of the KLF are getting off easy.
    - leoedin 4y ago
      > Shouldn't we demand more from art? Like actual meaning and maybe, just maybe, a positive impact on the world? I'm too young to have heard about the KLF when they did it. But learning about it later - the emotional response it triggers, the questions it poses about the nature of money, about personal responsibility to society, and the extent to which it reveals the hypocrisy of people who are outraged - I think it's an incredibly powerful act. Certainly far more powerful than a random shooting.
    - Towaway69 4y ago
      For me, their message was that art scene is dominate by money. In fact the entire world is dominated by money. Yes you might do a lot of good with a million quid but humans tend to do bad things when given a choice. Now if someone is uncomfortable or doesn't understand this message then yes it was just a gunshot.
    - isjdurubhuhshd 4y ago
      > It makes out that art is about as meaningful as a gunshot in a crowded room. Is that art? Chris Burden thought so! https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden)
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Would you be happier if they'd used the money for startup seed funding with a view to eventually cashing out after IPO? I suspect a lot of people are offended that in a supposedly free capitalist culture they had - and presumably still have - the freedom to subvert the usual rules. In capitalism artists are either supposed to be poor and struggling, or fragile gilded celebrities cocooned in enviable opulence. Both options are defined by money. It's a shock to the system for a successful artist to act with self-determination and to dramatise control over capital instead of being controlled by it.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        For sure. A16Z alone has wasted far, far more money than this. As has Donald Trump. Or Sergey and Larry. But that's the "correct" kind of wasting money.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  Would it have been better if they spent the money on "coke and hookers" like it was expected from "proper" rock stars?
  - Baeocystin 4y ago
    Just speaking my personal opinion- it's still a a waste, but at least the money would have been put back in to circulation. Better than burning it, at least.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Burning money does not destroy value. If the money supply decreases, the remaining money ends up being worth proportionally more.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I don't think I'd call it that. Even if we look only at "liquid values under control of a single person", this was a tiny, tiny fraction of the UK's stock of money. I can't find M3 numbers for back then, but currently this would be 0.0000027% of money. It would be hard to argue that this was the worst spent million, or even in the bottom decile. I'd say what they got for it was a lot of people questioning and discussing the value and purpose of money. For decades! Given that so much of our culture is supportive of acquisition regardless of harm, it could be argued that a million pounds of anti-greed propaganda was one of the most socially positive things they could have done with it. And even if we don't go that far, even if we discount the social value of art to 0, they still provided a hell of a lot of public entertainment for a million pounds. The latest Rolling Stones tour costs about 100m pounds. Major blockbusters cost 100-300m pounds each. Many indie films will cost more than 1m GBP. Compared with that, this looks like excellent value for money, and here nobody had to buy a ticket. So I think at the very least there are much worse uses of money to be mad about. But if you'd still prefer this one, I imagine they'd be fine with that. Stoking outrage was clearly one of the intended goals of the project, and they wouldn't have achieved their goals without it.

Baeocystin 4y ago

I appreciate the kind words. My anger at their actions comes from how coddled from reality they had to be to make such a choice. The levers of monetary supply and demand, of course, 'make' and 'destroy' much larger sums on a daily basis. But those aren't liquid values under control of a single person, either. Money that is, is much more salient, and more valuable. And they just pissed it away.

leoedin 4y ago
Did they piss it away though? That single statement was so powerful it's still causing emotional arguments about it 20 years later. Can you say that about other things people spent £1m on in 1994?
- msla 4y ago
  > That single statement was so powerful it's still causing emotional arguments about it 20 years later. I hate this argument, because it's worse than vacuous: It makes out that art is about as meaningful as a gunshot in a crowded room. Is that art? It'll damn well get a reaction, especially from the person who was just shot. Shouldn't we demand more from art? Like actual meaning and maybe, just maybe, a positive impact on the world? Or should the next art piece be a car bomb in front of the Louvre? Yes, burning a million pounds is comparable to a gunshot because a million pounds could save a life, so destroying a million pounds might well have ended one, in terms of opportunity cost. And no, you don't get to handwave that away by pointing to other people doing things, any more than a serial killer gets to exculpate themself by pointing to tobacconists. People do things with consequences, and then have to live with those consequences, and the members of the KLF are getting off easy.
  - leoedin 4y ago
    > Shouldn't we demand more from art? Like actual meaning and maybe, just maybe, a positive impact on the world? I'm too young to have heard about the KLF when they did it. But learning about it later - the emotional response it triggers, the questions it poses about the nature of money, about personal responsibility to society, and the extent to which it reveals the hypocrisy of people who are outraged - I think it's an incredibly powerful act. Certainly far more powerful than a random shooting.
  - Towaway69 4y ago
    For me, their message was that art scene is dominate by money. In fact the entire world is dominated by money. Yes you might do a lot of good with a million quid but humans tend to do bad things when given a choice. Now if someone is uncomfortable or doesn't understand this message then yes it was just a gunshot.
  - isjdurubhuhshd 4y ago
    > It makes out that art is about as meaningful as a gunshot in a crowded room. Is that art? Chris Burden thought so! https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden) https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_(Burden)
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Would you be happier if they'd used the money for startup seed funding with a view to eventually cashing out after IPO? I suspect a lot of people are offended that in a supposedly free capitalist culture they had - and presumably still have - the freedom to subvert the usual rules. In capitalism artists are either supposed to be poor and struggling, or fragile gilded celebrities cocooned in enviable opulence. Both options are defined by money. It's a shock to the system for a successful artist to act with self-determination and to dramatise control over capital instead of being controlled by it.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      For sure. A16Z alone has wasted far, far more money than this. As has Donald Trump. Or Sergey and Larry. But that's the "correct" kind of wasting money.
flohofwoe 4y ago
Would it have been better if they spent the money on "coke and hookers" like it was expected from "proper" rock stars?
- Baeocystin 4y ago
  Just speaking my personal opinion- it's still a a waste, but at least the money would have been put back in to circulation. Better than burning it, at least.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Burning money does not destroy value. If the money supply decreases, the remaining money ends up being worth proportionally more.
wpietri 4y ago
I don't think I'd call it that. Even if we look only at "liquid values under control of a single person", this was a tiny, tiny fraction of the UK's stock of money. I can't find M3 numbers for back then, but currently this would be 0.0000027% of money. It would be hard to argue that this was the worst spent million, or even in the bottom decile. I'd say what they got for it was a lot of people questioning and discussing the value and purpose of money. For decades! Given that so much of our culture is supportive of acquisition regardless of harm, it could be argued that a million pounds of anti-greed propaganda was one of the most socially positive things they could have done with it. And even if we don't go that far, even if we discount the social value of art to 0, they still provided a hell of a lot of public entertainment for a million pounds. The latest Rolling Stones tour costs about 100m pounds. Major blockbusters cost 100-300m pounds each. Many indie films will cost more than 1m GBP. Compared with that, this looks like excellent value for money, and here nobody had to buy a ticket. So I think at the very least there are much worse uses of money to be mad about. But if you'd still prefer this one, I imagine they'd be fine with that. Stoking outrage was clearly one of the intended goals of the project, and they wouldn't have achieved their goals without it.