Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#71

Post by SenAnder »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #20
mg wrote: post #8

This 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…

> 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…

They also still talk about Jack the Ripper. I couldn't imagine a worse metric than "starts a conversation". The Mona Lisa started far more conversations after it was stolen - did getting stolen make it better art?

But if the alleged artists taping bananas to walls tell us that's the measure to judge art by, who am I to question their wisdom?

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#72

Post by arghwhat »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #68
arghwhat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#73

Post by fodkodrasz »

coldtea wrote: post #66
fodkodrasz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one.

you made me chuckle, thanks!

> Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering?

Kind of? https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/

> As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random?

It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and authorities, when its authorities are questioned by an outsider, it becomes so defensive...

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#74

Post by karmakaze »

ryanmcdonough wrote: post #6

Museum director Lasse Andersson said that he had laughed out loud when he first saw the two blank canvasses in 2021, and decided to show the works anyway. "He stirred up my curatorial staff and he also stirred me up a bit, but I also had a laugh because it was really humoristic," the museum's director, Lasse Andersson So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the…

The artist forgot to follow through on the work's title "Take the Money and Run."

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#75

Post by Brian_K_White »

arghwhat wrote: post #72
Brian_K_White wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Zomg crime!

They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed.

Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons?

Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#76

Post by dustymcp »

Daviey wrote: post #58
Aurornis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his? The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process. Th…

I think you've misunderstood the intent of why someone commented on the museum director being amused. I think the understanding is that if the person who commissioned the work was "happy" with the result, then the artist had fulfilled his contract by supplying work that the commissioner was "happy with", despite it not being as they thought they were getting. However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to…

Yes that money was not payment but a prop to the artpiece.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#77

Post by arghwhat »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #75
arghwhat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Zomg crime! They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed. Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons? Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.

Stealing 100k USD is a very significant crime, and I find it very ridiculous that you'd compare that to jaywalking.

The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpenter then just ran off with the money without doing anything. Or if you hired an individual and gave them access to company accounts for the purpose of doing their job, which they then embezzled and ran away with.

The money was loaned for a contractually described use-case with a return date. Walking away with it with no intention to return - and trying to keep it afterwards when sued - is nothing but theft of a significant sum.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#78

Post by fatfingerd »

arghwhat wrote: post #77
Brian_K_White wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zomg crime! They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed. Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons? Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.

Stealing 100k USD is a very significant crime, and I find it very ridiculous that you'd compare that to jaywalking. The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpent…

They provided a similar (and vastly more popular) artwork and it was displayed. Even works that are not supposed to be creative works differ from the original order and courts often don't decide on a full refund if it provided utility.

I find it kind of strange that they don't want to keep these talking points but I think the court should have decided what value they already got out of using them if they don't permanently accept them.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#79

Post by Brian_K_White »

arghwhat wrote: post #77
Brian_K_White wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zomg crime! They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed. Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons? Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.

Stealing 100k USD is a very significant crime, and I find it very ridiculous that you'd compare that to jaywalking. The criminal was not ordered to "just make art", but comissioned to make a specific piece requested by the gallery - in the form of a frame filled with said money. As such, this is no different than if you hired a carpenter to build you a house, paid upfront with contractual obligations, but the carpent…

No. The crime/contract angle is not the most important element here. It's just a club that one side of a dispute happens to have, so they get to win the fight with their bigger club. It doesn't make their argument the more valid one.

Re: Danish artist told to repay museum €67,000 after turning in blank canvasses

#80

Post by coldtea »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #73
coldtea wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Probably, as I prefer the standard dictionary one. you made me chuckle, thanks! > Did Peggy Guggenheim and other such figures do it for money laundering? Kind of? https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/ > As opposed to the non-manufactured consent or opinion plurality of Joe Random? It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and…

>It is funny while postmodernism is all about deconstruction and questioning existing values, social structures and authorities, when its authorities are questioned by an outsider, it becomes so defensive...

Not that funny in this case, since this has nothing to do with "postmodernism".

The artists that did those things we discussed were peak modernism. Dada/surealism (Duchamp), or nouveau réalisme (Klein) for example, and of course the entirety of data, lettrism, etc. have nothing at all to do with postmodernism.

In fact post-modernism, both when taken as a critical stance and as an artistic theory, was precisely against modernism (that those artists represented).

Post reply on HN