Hacker News Reader

Comment by usmannk | Hacker News Reader

"Haaning took the money as part of an agreement with the Kunsten, which says it loaned Haaning more than half a million kroner so he could frame the cash in a reprise of an earlier artwork."

They didn't just commission him to make art. The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which Haaning did not do.

View on HN

But if they had paid him to create completely new art, it wouldn't have been an authentic performance of "Take the money and run", but a mere simulacrum. The breach of contract is the artwork.

Clearly it is art and heist. But the law doesn't care too much if your crime is a work of art.

We can call it "art crime".

No, no, it's "crime art".

Hmm maybe fraud? Breach of contract at most? Not a crime. Arguably he delivered something. It could also been just an invisible artwork.

Was the money supposed to be in the artwork as a medium? Maybe there’s a Bitcoin address on the frame or something.

I don't know where you're from but in Denmark fraud is a crime!

Yes maybe it is fraud it would depend on the contract. But he delivered something and did they accept it as in take possession?

Nice. And now the museum can create a piece of art in response called "Repercussions". (Or, maybe it was all one piece of art all along.)

I like it. They could request the judge that he serves his time inside the museum itself, in a cell prepared just for him where visitors can observe his daily routine. He will not only participate in one of the greatest modern art performances of all time, but he will indeed become the artwork.

And at the end they could burn the artist and issue an NFT.

An NFT? More like one NFT for every of his screams while he's burning to death, and they wouldn't record any so the screams can't be duplicated.

1 year later... the artist is alive and well, enjoying a mojito on a Cuban beach with a satisfied smile.

It's almost like you're saying that an NFT doesn't actually capture the thing it's correlated with. But if that was true it would completely undermine the concept of an NFT of an art work. The NFT wouldn't have any more unique value than an item # in a catalog.

That would actually be pretty interesting as art, I think.

It's been done...

https://www.antepavilion.org/hackney-fight

I beg you, if you have gotten this far, watch this 10 minute video about the above link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8xhdL8BPvU

It's one of the most entertaining things I've seen this year.

They said there's a contract in place and he'll return the money either way. In this case the artist produced something else than contracted to; they took it in good fun and apparently got pretty good publicity out of that, and they'll still get the money back.

Unless someone decides to turn on the lawsuit machine, everyone's a winner here.

From what I understand from the article, the museum gave him physical cash in which to use as the medium, along with money to pay for his labor (more that two times the quoted value, as well). In all, he received ~28 times the amount of money quoted. Pretty scummy thing to do, even if "provocative."

He has until January to return it. Although he broke the terms of the contract, the museum seems happy enough with the results so far - so long as he actually returns the money, it sounds like everything will be fine and non-scummy.

> The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline

Well he has said that he won't return them at the deadline. But I guess he has to say that for now.

I have a hard time believing this happened as the museum describes, because everyone will know this man has a large sum of cash sitting in his home/shop for three months. There had to be preparations to keep the money safe during the exhibition.

> The museum contracted him to reproduce a particular piece of art, which Haaning did not do.

He did make art fulfilling the concept that was discussed. The museum director said as much and it sounds like the art will still be exhibited.

The problem is that the museum loaned out materials to make the art and the artist did not return those materials. It’d be like if you let a handyman borrow some of your tools, and they completed the job and took your tools.

> Haaning signed a contract with the Kunsten, promising to deliver the artwork and to return the $84,000. The artist now faces a deadline to give the museum its money back on Jan. 16, when the work exhibition closes. The museum says it's talking with him about that deadline; it also acknowledges that Haaning did produce a provocative piece of work.

There is no problem. He will return the money (materials) when the deadline comes. If he doesn't by then, then they'll have a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com