4 ms·

He got to keep his fee, what he didn't get to keep was the cash that he was lent that was supposed to be part of the installation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ryanmcdonough 3y ago
He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said “The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.” Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist
- pringk02 3y ago
  It seems that was basically what it was. He had an earlier 2010 work called "An Average Danish Year Income": https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-jens-haaning-an-average-danish-year-income-2010/ https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je... He was asked to reproduce it for 2021 using the money given
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > unless the contract specifically said That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The artist broke the terms of the contract. You don’t think they’d hand him a giant pile of cash, ask nicely for him to give it back, and hope for the best, do you? These commissions will have clear contracts about deliverables, ownership, and rights assignment.
  - runesoerensen 3y ago
    That was the point of the lawsuit. But also seems like the law, museum, and lots of people here missed the point too. The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.
- FridayNightTV 3y ago
  > The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork More amusing if the artist burnt the money and used the ashes to create an artwork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu... " K Foundation Burn A Million Quid....... compiles stills from the film, accounts of events and viewer reactions, and an image of the brick that was manufactured from the fire's ashes. A film consisting of a static three-minute shot of the brick, "This Brick", was shown at London's Barbican Centre prior to Drummond and Cauty's [The K Foundation] performance as 2K in the same year."
exitb 3y ago
But it makes the art worse if the money's returned. It's JUST an empty canvas then, not even worth keeping on the wall.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  While the idea was slightly amusing, it was always just empty canvases. The artist just also breached contract and committed theft on the side, which is an unjustified crime that does not in any way enhance said blank canvas. The criminal individual was not even punished, he just have to return the stolen goods and still get paid. If the museum had not chosen to display the canvas, I feel it would be fair to require damages on top of the money returned in full, without pay deducted and with interest.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit. The fact that it made some people mad and they don't understand, or at least appreciate it, is not proof that it's the highest form of art, but it is absolutely consistent with it. Violating expectations is very much one (of many) purpose of art, and holding up "contract" doesn't change that. That's just a handy club that happens to be available in this case and you're willing to wield it to club something you don't like. Another legal c word is "context". No one can argue something like this wasn't always a possible interpretation, complete with prior examples. So the court and some sufficient number of the voting population aren't artists and the only thing they see is money and a canvas? That is the least interesting and least valid proof of worth or validity of a piece or work of art ever. Just like all the people who say "It's just splatters, I could do that!". That only makes them common and in possession of a club, not right.
    - arghwhat 3y ago
      > I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit. Crime is unacceptable and is not to be glorified as art. Especially not this kind of lowly and outright pathetic attempt at crime.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ryanmcdonough 3y ago

He said the work was taking their money, unless the contract specifically said “The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork, such as the Mona Lisa. The bank notes should form the actual colours and contours of the artwork, and the final piece should not be a mere abstract interpretation.” Maybe it did and that’s why they got the money back, but if not I’d side with the artist

pringk02 3y ago
It seems that was basically what it was. He had an earlier 2010 work called "An Average Danish Year Income": https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-jens-haaning-an-average-danish-year-income-2010/ https://www.sabsay.com/artists/43-jens-haaning/works/9668-je... He was asked to reproduce it for 2021 using the money given
Aurornis 3y ago
> unless the contract specifically said That’s the whole point of the lawsuit. The artist broke the terms of the contract. You don’t think they’d hand him a giant pile of cash, ask nicely for him to give it back, and hope for the best, do you? These commissions will have clear contracts about deliverables, ownership, and rights assignment.
- runesoerensen 3y ago
  That was the point of the lawsuit. But also seems like the law, museum, and lots of people here missed the point too. The guy was paid less than $6K for his work. He was not handed a "giant pile of cash" either, but he will now have to pay back the cash that the museum (for whatever reason) lent him, along with the legal costs amounting to ~$11K.
FridayNightTV 3y ago
> The artist shall utilise the bank notes to visually reproduce a specific artwork More amusing if the artist burnt the money and used the ashes to create an artwork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu... " K Foundation Burn A Million Quid....... compiles stills from the film, accounts of events and viewer reactions, and an image of the brick that was manufactured from the fire's ashes. A film consisting of a static three-minute shot of the brick, "This Brick", was shown at London's Barbican Centre prior to Drummond and Cauty's [The K Foundation] performance as 2K in the same year."

exitb 3y ago

But it makes the art worse if the money's returned. It's JUST an empty canvas then, not even worth keeping on the wall.

arghwhat 3y ago
While the idea was slightly amusing, it was always just empty canvases. The artist just also breached contract and committed theft on the side, which is an unjustified crime that does not in any way enhance said blank canvas. The criminal individual was not even punished, he just have to return the stolen goods and still get paid. If the museum had not chosen to display the canvas, I feel it would be fair to require damages on top of the money returned in full, without pay deducted and with interest.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit. The fact that it made some people mad and they don't understand, or at least appreciate it, is not proof that it's the highest form of art, but it is absolutely consistent with it. Violating expectations is very much one (of many) purpose of art, and holding up "contract" doesn't change that. That's just a handy club that happens to be available in this case and you're willing to wield it to club something you don't like. Another legal c word is "context". No one can argue something like this wasn't always a possible interpretation, complete with prior examples. So the court and some sufficient number of the voting population aren't artists and the only thing they see is money and a canvas? That is the least interesting and least valid proof of worth or validity of a piece or work of art ever. Just like all the people who say "It's just splatters, I could do that!". That only makes them common and in possession of a club, not right.
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    > I hope you are not any form of art teacher. The work was legit. Crime is unacceptable and is not to be glorified as art. Especially not this kind of lowly and outright pathetic attempt at crime.