4 ms·

>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 t

>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.

toyg 3y ago
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.
- johngladtj 3y ago
  Oh yes, that evil Capital paying you for a service you promise to provide, and then getting a refund when you don't provide it. The oppression!
  - schiffern 3y ago
    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?
  - toyg 3y ago
    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.

toyg 3y ago

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.

johngladtj 3y ago
Oh yes, that evil Capital paying you for a service you promise to provide, and then getting a refund when you don't provide it. The oppression!
- schiffern 3y ago
  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?
- toyg 3y ago
  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.