He didn’t break the deal. The piece is called “take the money and run” the fact that the money is missing from the empty canvas at display is the statement being made. And people clearly are paying to come see it.
Imagine the exact same scenario but he just never took the money, left it at the museum and just provided 2 empty canvas. It would not have the same effect and reach. And it would have been a breach of contract.
The artist delivered and the Museum literally got their moneys worth.
He broke the deal because that’s not was agreed upon, he was supposed to make an artwork comparing incomes between rich and poor but just stole the money which was intended to be part of the artwork.
You must have a different source then the one above because i see nothing about about the exact topic being part of the deal.
If that is the case then i see your point (though i think there is wiggle room left to argue that such topic was included, it would need to be the artist themselves to do the creative arguing)
A Danish artist has been ordered to return nearly 500,000 kroner ($72,000; £58,000) to a museum after giving it two blank canvasses for a project he named Take the Money and Run.
The Kunsten Museum in Aalborg had intended for Jens Haaning to embed the banknotes in two pieces of art in 2021.
Maybe i am reading it from a different perspective but intended = / =agreed on and embed is subjective cause the money is connected to the art. Even if its quantum entanglement.
I did misread the end of the article though. Apparently its the artist speaking and not the museum, i don’t think he ever expected to keep the money but justplay enough hardball to get famous, which worked.
Maybe its just me getting mildly triggered by some terms now.
This is a cool discussion but i want to put some disclaimer because this is my so maniest comment with a pro-artist stance. I don’t have hard feeling either way of the argument.
Having said that i think if the museum intended the piece to be made by such narrow definitions then they weren’t looking for art and they didn’t need an artist.
There are thousands of art works commenting on the wealth gap that use real money as a medium it hardly be original. (Museum intended, seems opposite of artistic integrity)
The artwork that was provided is an original creative work. It comments on the wealth gap. (Museum spends big on artistic decor versus normal people who can use that money to live).
The money is entangled with the art. Without the stolen money the art would not have a meaning.
I actually think the museum should present the money in a big money bag next to the painting labeled “stolen money” it would simultaneously remain part of the original work while also being its own reactionary peace on how crime doesn’t pay.
Here is an idea. The museum can hire me as an artist to put the money in that bag for them. I promise i wont fill it with junk and name it “unwise investment” /s
He didn’t break the deal. The piece is called “take the money and run” the fact that the money is missing from the empty canvas at display is the statement being made. And people clearly are paying to come see it.
Imagine the exact same scenario but he just never took the money, left it at the museum and just provided 2 empty canvas. It would not have the same effect and reach. And it would have been a breach of contract.
The artist delivered and the Museum literally got their moneys worth.
He broke the deal because that’s not was agreed upon, he was supposed to make an artwork comparing incomes between rich and poor but just stole the money which was intended to be part of the artwork.
He was not hired to make “take the money and run”
You must have a different source then the one above because i see nothing about about the exact topic being part of the deal.
If that is the case then i see your point (though i think there is wiggle room left to argue that such topic was included, it would need to be the artist themselves to do the creative arguing)
FTA:
Maybe i am reading it from a different perspective but intended = / =agreed on and embed is subjective cause the money is connected to the art. Even if its quantum entanglement.
I did misread the end of the article though. Apparently its the artist speaking and not the museum, i don’t think he ever expected to keep the money but justplay enough hardball to get famous, which worked.
Alternative interpretations necessarily ignore the museum’s intent.
Maybe its just me getting mildly triggered by some terms now.
This is a cool discussion but i want to put some disclaimer because this is my so maniest comment with a pro-artist stance. I don’t have hard feeling either way of the argument.
Having said that i think if the museum intended the piece to be made by such narrow definitions then they weren’t looking for art and they didn’t need an artist.
There are thousands of art works commenting on the wealth gap that use real money as a medium it hardly be original. (Museum intended, seems opposite of artistic integrity)
The artwork that was provided is an original creative work. It comments on the wealth gap. (Museum spends big on artistic decor versus normal people who can use that money to live). The money is entangled with the art. Without the stolen money the art would not have a meaning.
I actually think the museum should present the money in a big money bag next to the painting labeled “stolen money” it would simultaneously remain part of the original work while also being its own reactionary peace on how crime doesn’t pay.
Here is an idea. The museum can hire me as an artist to put the money in that bag for them. I promise i wont fill it with junk and name it “unwise investment” /s
An artists chose to steal money from a rich museum. That’s art commenting on wealth inequality imo…
It’s theft and should be punished.
Idk, not all theft is evil and SHOULD be punished. Stealing food when hungry, stealing back from the capitalist class, funny theft… yeah.