[deleted]
Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
61–70 of 84 posts
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> 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.
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.
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art. But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions. [0] https://en.m.wi…
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage. “The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to exp…
Well you seem to be confusing "what is good art" and "what is art". I vehemently disagree with saying 4:33 or the banana "isn't art", this sounds like a very narrow definition which I struggle to imagine.
I have more sympathy for the claim that it's not "good art", not particularly interesting or meaningful.
With regard to the banana I tend to agree. This was just a small provocating artpiece which doesn't bring anything to the table and is unlikely to be discussed much in ten years, let alone 70.
4:33 however is still very much discussed 70 years later and will continue to be, and that may be because it's not just a random joke but fits within the work of an important composer (John Cage) which contributed significantly to the artistic debate of what "is" music, at a time where this question was suddenly much less clear than it had been in the past (i.e. the same piece today would be much less meaningful).
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. I used to think 4'33" was the most ridiculously arrogant piece of pseudo-art in the history of pseudo-art. But people still talk about it today, 70 years after it was composed [0], and they will still be talking about it 500 years from now. So I've changed my mind. It does exactly what good art is supposed to do: It makes you ask questions. [0] https://en.m.wi…
Who decided that “good art makes you ask questions” or “art is about starting a conversation”? Sounds like an excuse for passing off garbage. “The Course Of Empire” is a beautiful piece of art for many reasons: it’s clearly masterful, it represents complex ideas simply, it conveys emotions we lack words to convey, it beautifully displays the human experience, and so on. It’s art even if you didn’t have a human to exp…
While acknowledging that the question "what is art?" is an interminable quagmire, I'll say that art is any artifact that induces an emotion.
If an artist paints a wall white, and that doesn't induce any emotion, then it's not art.
If an artist paints a wall white and then tells you "hey, this is art", and that induces anger or frustration in you because you disagree, then it becomes art.
When the person above implies that this "makes you ask questions", the question in this case is "what is art?", which, as mentioned, is a contentious and interminable topic which itself arouses emotion, making it good fodder as a topic for art.
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#65This reminds me of a common theme in the art world. I wonder if there is a name for it. Maybe "Low effort art"? Examples off the top of my head: John Cage "composed" a song consisting of just silence. Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal which he simply purchased from a store. Yves Klein exhibited 11 paintings that were exactly the same. They were simply blue, no structures or subject. But he priced them all differently…
A major element of 4'33" is that it is impossible to experience silence. It was partly inspired by Cage's experience in an anechoic chamber. He'd expected to hear silence but could still hear sounds that were coming from himself (the story is that a sound engineer told him the sounds were his bloodstream and his nervous system, but I find it very hard to believe that what he heard was actually either of those things)…
This is exactly how you sell the bullshit - with cleverly worded bullshit that makes the reader feel smart. He was able to pull it off because he was already famous and accomplished.
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
For lack of originality, those examples are all very original. For lack of artistic value, are all highly regarded by critics and art audiences. For lack of mometary value, they've been sold for very expensive prices...
You have a different definition of original than me, it seems. Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right? Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
>You have a different definition of original than me, it seems.
Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one.
>Monetary value? You mean money laundering?
I also mean the traditional art buying public, before the 70s when modern random figures came into the picture, when money laundering wasn't needed and money laundering laws and checks where almost or entirely non-existent. Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?
>Critics and art audiences: totally no "opinion monopoly" or manufactured consent at play, right?
As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
A major element of 4'33" is that it is impossible to experience silence. It was partly inspired by Cage's experience in an anechoic chamber. He'd expected to hear silence but could still hear sounds that were coming from himself (the story is that a sound engineer told him the sounds were his bloodstream and his nervous system, but I find it very hard to believe that what he heard was actually either of those things)…
This is exactly how you sell the bullshit - with cleverly worded bullshit that makes the reader feel smart. He was able to pull it off because he was already famous and accomplished.
What is art but cleverly composed stimulus? Idk it’s a bit silly and I think the critique that an unknown wouldn’t be able to do it is fair, but that too is true of most art
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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.
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The"artist" seems like the kind of guy who would easily say the quality of "the material (cash) they gave me wasn't good so I used something else instead. So we're even." He's quoted as saying the musemum gained a lot more in publicity without mentioning the publicity he himself got while stealing the museum's money.
It's certainly something to hear an artist say that the value they provided in an exchange was exposure. Usually this goes the other way around.
You know, what a great observation. That could even be part of it all. It probably wasn't an intentional point but it could be. It is so dead on.
Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
> 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_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."