4 ms·
If I read this correctly, the money wasn’t meant for the artist, but was rather meant to be put into the artwork itself as banknotes (which would then presumabl
by nneonneo 3y ago
If I read this correctly, the money wasn’t meant for the artist, but was rather meant to be put into the artwork itself as banknotes (which would then presumably be owned by the museum). It seems to be a pretty clear case of fraud masquerading as art, and the artist admits as much in the title of the work.
- feetsoup 3y ago'Art made out of money' is conceptually played out; this is much more interesting. In this case, the art isn't sensible matter on the canvas, but the intelligible matter of its creation. Clearly, it was effective on the museum director, if he laughed at loud and put it on display, and it's captivating in general if it being newsworthy is any proof. I'm not saying the museum is wrong for trying to get the money back, just that this isn't fraud. The artist requested materials to make a piece of art, the museum granted the request, and the artist utilized those materials by way of 'taking the money and running'. Take that away and the piece doesn't exist anymore - it's just a blank canvas, which is as tired as it gets.